CelticsStrong

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 12:25:30 PM

Title: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 12:25:30 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\




Quote
Energizer -

    The St. Louis-based company said Thursday that it expects to shed about 1,500 employees. When finished, the restructuring should lead to $200 million in pretax yearly savings, Energizer said. It aims to have most of its restructuring steps finished by the end of September 2014.

     

• Westinghouse -

    Westinghouse Anniston, the contractor responsible for shutting down Anniston’s chemical weapons incinerator, has reduced its workforce by another 50 employees.

     

• Research in Motion Limited -

    Research in Motion Ltd., the maker of BlackBerry smartphones, laid off about 200 people at its U.S. headquarters in Irving on Wednesday, according to a source close to the company who did not want to be named.

     

• Lightyear Network Solutions -

    More than one dozen employees at a Pikeville company lost their jobs this week. Officials with Lightyear Network Solutions said they are consolidating offices in Louisville and Pikeville to save money.

Providence Journal -

    The Providence Journal Co. laid off 23 full-time workers Wednesday as part of a cost-cutting effort, including 16 members of the Providence Newspaper Guild and 7 non-union employees.

     

• Hawker Beechcraft -

    The company says 240 employees will lose their jobs with the closing of Hawker Beechcraft Services facilities in Little Rock, Ark.; Mesa, Ariz.; and San Antonio, Texas.

 

• Boeing (30% of their management staff) -

    Boeing Co. said Wednesday it plans to employ 30% fewer executives at its Boeing Defense, Space & Security unit by the end of 2012 compared to 2010 levels.

     

• CVPH Medical Center -

    CVPH Medical Center has handed pink slips to 17 employees. The layoffs — nine in management and eight hourly staffers — are part of an effort to “help bolster the hospital’s financial position in 2013 and beyond,” a press release said.

     

• US Cellular -

    The move will result in 980 job cuts at U.S. Cellular, with 640 in the Chicago area, according to a spokeswoman. The cuts are slightly under 12 percent of the approximately 8,400 total employees U.S. Cellular had at the end of the third quarter.

     

• Momentive Performance Materials -

    About 150 workers at Sistersville’s Momentive Performance Materials plant will be temporarily laid off later this month, officials said this week.

     

• Rocketdyne -

    About 100 employees at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, most of whom work in the San Fernando Valley, were laid off Wednesday in response to dwindling government spending on space exploration, the company said. The layoffs were effective immediately, and 75 percent of them came at the facilities on Canoga and De Soto avenues, which employ about 1,100 people. The company has six sites across the Valley.

 

• Brake Parts -

    The leader of an automotive parts plant in Lincoln County has told state officials that there are plans to lay off 75 workers starting in late December…The layoffs are expected to start Dec. 28 and continue in the first quarter of 2013

• Vestas Wind Systems -

    Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) is seeking to sell a stake of as much as 20 percent and said it’s reducing headcount by 3,000 to raise the staff cuts by the biggest wind turbine maker to almost a third over two years.

 

• Husqvarna -

    Husqvarna AB (HUSQB), the world’s biggest maker of powered garden tools, plans to cut about 600 jobs in a move that will save 220 million kronor ($33 million) a year by 2014.

 

• Center for Hospice New York -

    The Center for Hospice and Palliative Care plans to temporarily lay off as many as 40 employees next year as it embarks on a major renovation of the inpatient unit at its Cheektowaga campus.

 

• Bristol-Meyers -

    Bristol-Myers Squibb is following up its lackluster third-quarter results with almost 480 layoffs. As Pharmalot reports, the company notified the New Jersey government that it would scale back in Plainsboro, which means the cuts will hit its sales operations.

 

• OCE North America -

    Trumbull printer- and scanning-equipment provider Oce North America, Inc. will lay off 135 workers in three Connecticut communities, including East Hartford, according to its notice with the state Labor Department.

 

• Darden Restaurants -

    The company, which was among those who had received an Obamacare waiver in the past, is looking to limit workers to 28 hours per week. A full time employee that is required to have health insurance (lest the employer pay a fine) works 30 hours per week, as defined by the Obamacare law.

 

• West Ridge Mine -

    In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama administration for instituting policies that will close down “204 American coal-fired power plants by 2014″ and for drastically reducing the market for coal.

 

• United Blood Services Gulf -

    United Blood Services Gulf South region, the non-profit blood service provider for much of south Louisiana and Mississippi, will lay off approximately 10 percent of its workforce. It was a hard decision to make according to Susan Begnaud, Regional Center Director for the Gulf South region.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 12:29:23 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 12:32:16 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

Sounds like ignoring reality to me. Viva recovery!
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 12:33:18 PM
Providence Journal is laying off?  If only Mitt had won those newspaper jobs would have been safe!   ;)

I think most predictions see continued job growth and reducing unemployment.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 12:40:19 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

Sounds like ignoring reality to me. Viva recovery!
Please explain to this poster why blaming RIM's failure on RIM's idiocy, is "ignoring reality".
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 12:45:01 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

Sounds like ignoring reality to me. Viva recovery!
Please explain to this poster why blaming RIM's failure on RIM's idiocy, is "ignoring reality".

Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 09, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
I know Coal Companies laid off people right after the election.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 12:47:32 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

Sounds like ignoring reality to me. Viva recovery!

Sounds like ignoring the business section of the paper for quite some time to me.

Otherwise, you'd realize that RIM has been on the downswing for quite some time now and that notion has been easily accessible for wh now. 

I guess Groupon's downward spirial should be blamed on Obama too.  Nothing to do with poor business planning or decision making whatsoever.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 12:48:36 PM
I know Coal Companies laid off people right after the election.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12wyyn/yesterday_i_was_laid_off_because_president_obama/

the talking squirrel thing cracked me up.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: CapnDunks on November 09, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
Politically charged environment right before election probably means that layoffs would draw more attention and backlash. Better to wait until afterward when there's a better chance of keeping it relatively quiet.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

Sounds like ignoring reality to me. Viva recovery!
Please explain to this poster why blaming RIM's failure on RIM's idiocy, is "ignoring reality".

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 12:49:57 PM
CelticsBlog has no plans for layoffs at this time.

Thank god.  The lost earnings would really put a dent in my finances.  ;)
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 12:53:17 PM
Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election :-\
Sounds like a non sequitur. RIM, for example, has been shooting itself in the foot for years now, and their failure has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

Sounds like ignoring reality to me. Viva recovery!
Please explain to this poster why blaming RIM's failure on RIM's idiocy, is "ignoring reality".

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.

So if we find 20ish companies that are hiring does that cancel out your list?

http://www.monster.com/
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 12:53:31 PM
Jimmy Johns is increasing sandwich prices by $.50 per sandwich to cover healthcare costs for employees
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: InfiniteMH on November 09, 2012, 01:00:04 PM
We're going to take this country and drive it straight to hell because God works in mysterious ways.



Enjoy the ride.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 01:00:31 PM
Jimmy Johns is increasing sandwich prices by $.50 per sandwich to cover healthcare costs for employees

Beach Club (no cucumbers) is the bomb!
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 01:00:42 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 01:08:30 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 01:10:52 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I have been following Rim, it doesn't seem like you have.  There new item is far from a turd and has the backing of several governments already due to the encryption.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: blink on November 09, 2012, 01:16:53 PM
Since it is obvious that your man lost on Tuesday, you feel the need to start this thread.

good job!

Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 01:17:25 PM
I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

It's a shame we live in such a blame-based society now that this kind of argument can become popular.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility?  I say those businesses have no one to blame but themselves.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 01:22:04 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring. 
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

It's a shame we live in such a blame-based society now that this kind of argument can become popular.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility?  I say those businesses have no one to blame but themselves.

Excellent, then Bush had nothing to do with the 08 meltdown.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 01:25:14 PM
Thanks Obama.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: LooseCannon on November 09, 2012, 01:30:33 PM
I only looked up a few companies on the list before I got tired.

Westinghouse Anniston laid off 50 workers because they are ahead of schedule (http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/20755025/article-More-layoffs-announced-at-Anniston-weapons-incinerator?instance=1st_left) in closing down a chemical weapons incineration plant.

Lightyear Network Solutions informed workers on the day before the election (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c617c51e787d4b86ae32d09ca679c272/KY--Lightyear-Layoffs) that they were letting them go.

The Providence Journal's layoffs (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194919/3-photographers-among-those-laid-off-at-providence-journal/) were because not enough workers took buyouts in Septeber (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/187794/providence-journal-to-cut-staff/).

At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 01:31:25 PM
I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

It's a shame we live in such a blame-based society now that this kind of argument can become popular.  Whatever happened to personal responsibility?  I say those businesses have no one to blame but themselves.

Excellent, then Bush had nothing to do with the 08 meltdown.

Bush had little to nothing to do with the 08 meltdown.  The fault was with the businesses who made bad loans and the people that signed up for them.  The worst thing you can say about the government is that they didn't protect both parties from themselves, and everyone else from the indirect fallout.

I'm glad to see we agree for once but now I'm confused why you started the thread.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 01:31:50 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.


Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.





Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 01:33:10 PM
At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

It's from Glenn Beck's website.  So I'd like to go with "all of the above".
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Jeff on November 09, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
an now Mike Brown? with the layoffs never end?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 01:35:07 PM
I only looked up a few companies on the list before I got tired.

Westinghouse Anniston laid off 50 workers because they are ahead of schedule (http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/20755025/article-More-layoffs-announced-at-Anniston-weapons-incinerator?instance=1st_left) in closing down a chemical weapons incineration plant.

Lightyear Network Solutions informed workers on the day before the election (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c617c51e787d4b86ae32d09ca679c272/KY--Lightyear-Layoffs) that they were letting them go.

The Providence Journal's layoffs (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194919/3-photographers-among-those-laid-off-at-providence-journal/) were because not enough workers took buyouts in Septeber (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/187794/providence-journal-to-cut-staff/).

At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

Not saying it's just because he's been reelected, although that is a factor, but it's mainly a result of his failed policies.

Employers are going to be hit with increased taxes next year, cutting staff is a great way to deal with the lost revenue.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.
Those? Like who? Surely you have someone in mind.

I'd expect the list to be questioned by those who have an understanding about why RIM (a Canadian company, in case you weren't aware) is struggling. And further, to wonder what kind of slapdash effort could result in its inclusion on this list, that attempts to pin the layoffs on the Obama administration, without noticing that RIM undermines the entire thing.

I have been following Rim, it doesn't seem like you have.  There new item is far from a turd and has the backing of several governments already due to the encryption.
I sure hope you don't own stock in them, which according to the latest numbers in a quick search, I could afford with the change buried in my couch cushions. Their Q1 results were horrendous: a $500+ million dollar loss, and a shedding over over 2 billion dollars in sales over the same period the prior year. Their userbase for the Blackberry may end up declining for the first time in company history. Their share of the smartphone market has crated: hovering around 5%, last I checked. A mere three years ago they were literally half the market. Yahoo has even excluded the BB from their employee smartphone list. You know you're in the crapper when Marissa Mayer doesn't invite you to the party.

The 10 is a Hail Mary.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.


Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.

No, it was 48 hours after the election that you cut and pasted this list.   Some - like RIM - havent even announced the alleged cuts.  Others - like Husqvarna - are foreign companies, so job cuts in Sweden probably arent indicative of Obama's failed policies.  Regardless, show me causation, show me the macro picture.

And if you can point to the unemployment rate to show that the business atmosphere is getting worse since the election I would be happy to look at it and acknowledge if it causes me to revise my opinion, or makes a good point.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: KGs Knee on November 09, 2012, 01:39:23 PM
an now Mike Brown? with the layoffs never end?

TP!   ;D
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 01:40:54 PM
I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.
Those? Like who? Surely you have someone in mind.

I'd expect the list to be questioned by those who have an understanding about why RIM (a Canadian company, in case you weren't aware) is struggling. And further, to wonder what kind of slapdash effort could result in its inclusion on this list, that attempts to pin the layoffs on the Obama administration, without noticing that RIM undermines the entire thing.

I have been following Rim, it doesn't seem like you have.  There new item is far from a turd and has the backing of several governments already due to the encryption.
I sure hope you don't own stock in them, which according to the latest numbers in a quick search, I could afford with the change buried in my couch cushions. Their Q1 results were horrendous: a $500+ million dollar loss, and a shedding over over 2 billion dollars in sales over the same period the prior year. Their userbase for the Blackberry may end up declining for the first time in company history. Their share of the smartphone market has crated: hovering around 5%, last I checked. A mere three years ago they were literally half the market. Yahoo has even excluded the BB from their employee smartphone list. You know you're in the crapper when Marissa Mayer doesn't invite you to the party.

The 10 is a Hail Mary.

I don't own the stock but that's not the point of my statement... 
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: LooseCannon on November 09, 2012, 01:43:51 PM
At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

It's from Glenn Beck's website.  So I'd like to go with "all of the above".

I've lost track.  Is getting news from Glenn Beck a notch above or a notch below getting news from Alex Jones these days?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 01:55:58 PM
I don't own the stock but that's not the point of my statement...
You just like their new shiny? I'm skeptical, mostly because their stock has lost 94% of its value in four and a half years, and that they somehow managed to lose year-over-year sales roughly equal to nearly the gross domestic product of Aruba. I expect them to screw it up.

But who knows, now that Obama is back for another term, maybe they pull it off.  ;)
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 01:58:18 PM
I don't own the stock but that's not the point of my statement...
You just like their new shiny? I'm skeptical, mostly because their stock has lost 94% of its value in four and a half years, and that they somehow managed to lose year-over-year sales roughly equal to nearly the gross domestic product of Aruba. I expect them to screw it up.

But who knows, now that Obama is back for another term, maybe they pull it off.  ;)

Again you still are not addressing the point
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.


Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.

No, it was 48 hours after the election that you cut and pasted this list.   Some - like RIM - havent even announced the alleged cuts.  Others - like Husqvarna - are foreign companies, so job cuts in Sweden probably arent indicative of Obama's failed policies.  Regardless, show me causation, show me the macro picture.

And if you can point to the unemployment rate to show that the business atmosphere is getting worse since the election I would be happy to look at it and acknowledge if it causes me to revise my opinion, or makes a good point.

It doesn't have to get worse, staying the same isn't exactly great is it.

The companies on that list(which make up a small percentage of the list) that are foreign generate a lot of sales here in the US. Demand has fallen, now why would that be? Could it be people don't have the money to buy their products because it's going to other places like increased energy and food costs?


The majority of employers like Energizer and Boeing on that list announced the cuts on the 7th or 8th. There were a few that did earlier, but they were the minority. It doesn't really matter because these people are out of jobs. I never said that it was only(but I do believe it played a part because these businesses are not seeing good things ahead)  due to Obama's reelection, but a culmination of his first term. Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 02:03:45 PM
At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

It's from Glenn Beck's website.  So I'd like to go with "all of the above".

I've lost track.  Is getting news from Glenn Beck a notch above or a notch below getting news from Alex Jones these days?

Did Glenn make these layoff notices up? Do tell if you have insight.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 02:06:12 PM
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 02:09:48 PM
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.

really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 02:10:05 PM
Again you still are not addressing the point
Sorry that I don't agree with you about something. It happens.

Did Glenn make these layoff notices up? Do tell if you have insight.
He probably didn't. Two other things that he didn't do: research, sanity test of list.

Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".
It would be strange to expect large companies to add jobs across the board during any period of time, not just a recovery. That would require that every large company be successful. This is how capitalism works: failed companies fail. The capital goes into more productive uses.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 02:14:30 PM
really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.
Are you ignoring that the jobs numbers are from a different survey than the unemployment rate, or is it that you don't realize that they are different?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
Again you still are not addressing the point
Sorry that I don't agree with you about something. It happens.

Did Glenn make these layoff notices up? Do tell if you have insight.
He probably didn't. Two other things that he didn't do: research, sanity test of list.

Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".
It would be strange to expect large companies to add jobs across the board during any period of time, not just a recovery. That would require that every large company be successful. This is how capitalism works: failed companies fail. The capital goes into more productive uses.

Guess we didn't need the auto bailout or green energy incentives huh.

Yes, totally strange to expect large companies to add jobs during an economic recovery. It's perfectly normal for shed jobs when an economic policy is causing the economy to improve. Your statements are starting to look like a pretzel.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 02:16:09 PM
Again you still are not addressing the point
Sorry that I don't agree with you about something. It happens.

Did Glenn make these layoff notices up? Do tell if you have insight.
He probably didn't. Two other things that he didn't do: research, sanity test of list.

Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".
It would be strange to expect large companies to add jobs across the board during any period of time, not just a recovery. That would require that every large company be successful. This is how capitalism works: failed companies fail. The capital goes into more productive uses.

You didn't disagree with me, you said that I wasn't paying attention to the company.  I'm sorry that you made such a strong statement without any justification and then ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 02:16:59 PM
really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.
Are you ignoring that the jobs numbers are from a different survey than the unemployment rate, or is it that you don't realize that they are different?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

BLS doesn't count?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Celtics18 on November 09, 2012, 02:18:30 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.


Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.

No, it was 48 hours after the election that you cut and pasted this list.   Some - like RIM - havent even announced the alleged cuts.  Others - like Husqvarna - are foreign companies, so job cuts in Sweden probably arent indicative of Obama's failed policies.  Regardless, show me causation, show me the macro picture.

And if you can point to the unemployment rate to show that the business atmosphere is getting worse since the election I would be happy to look at it and acknowledge if it causes me to revise my opinion, or makes a good point.

It doesn't have to get worse, staying the same isn't exactly great is it.

The companies on that list(which make up a small percentage of the list) that are foreign generate a lot of sales here in the US. Demand has fallen, now why would that be? Could it be people don't have the money to buy their products because it's going to other places like increased energy and food costs?


The majority of employers like Energizer and Boeing on that list announced the cuts on the 7th or 8th. There were a few that did earlier, but they were the minority. It doesn't really matter because these people are out of jobs. I never said that it was only due to Obam's reelection, but a culmination of his first term. Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".


I got a blowout on my car tire the other day.  Interestingly, it happened right after Obama got elected.  Coincidence?  You tell me.

Luckily, though, my mechanic is giving me a good deal on a new used one, and he's going to fix the brakes, as well,  for cheap. 

Thank you, Obama. 

Now, you may say that there is absolutely no proof that those events are in any way related to the re-election of Barack Obama.  But, I say that they could be.  You can't prove me wrong.  Therefore, I'm right. 

Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Guess we didn't need the auto bailout or green energy incentives huh.
I'll interpret this abrupt change of the subject as you conceding the point.

Creative destruction is important for capitalism, and and happens even in recoveries. Nobody would ever argue that bad companies only exist during recessions, after all.

You didn't disagree with me, you said that I wasn't paying attention to the company.  I'm sorry that you made such a strong statement without any justification and then ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Once again:

Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

I don't see how you can consider this timing strange, unless you haven't been following how badly RIM has been doing. This is a company that is bleeding from every orifice. Layoffs should be obvious, not strange. If they are strange, it's only strange that they haven't happened sooner.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: LooseCannon on November 09, 2012, 02:32:36 PM
At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

It's from Glenn Beck's website.  So I'd like to go with "all of the above".

I've lost track.  Is getting news from Glenn Beck a notch above or a notch below getting news from Alex Jones these days?

Did Glenn make these layoff notices up? Do tell if you have insight.

My insight is the first thing quoted in this post.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 02:34:47 PM
Guess we didn't need the auto bailout or green energy incentives huh.
I'll interpret this abrupt change of the subject as you conceding the point.

Creative destruction is important for capitalism, and and happens even in recoveries. Nobody would ever argue that bad companies only exist during recessions, after all.

You didn't disagree with me, you said that I wasn't paying attention to the company.  I'm sorry that you made such a strong statement without any justification and then ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Once again:

Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

I don't see how you can consider this timing strange, unless you haven't been following how badly RIM has been doing. This is a company that is bleeding from every orifice. Layoffs should be obvious, not strange. If they are strange, it's only strange that they haven't happened sooner.

You can admit that you didn't know about the governmental approvals their new product had.  It seems strange that they would layoff employees after the "Big Government" candidate won. 
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 02:41:57 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.


Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.

No, it was 48 hours after the election that you cut and pasted this list.   Some - like RIM - havent even announced the alleged cuts.  Others - like Husqvarna - are foreign companies, so job cuts in Sweden probably arent indicative of Obama's failed policies.  Regardless, show me causation, show me the macro picture.

And if you can point to the unemployment rate to show that the business atmosphere is getting worse since the election I would be happy to look at it and acknowledge if it causes me to revise my opinion, or makes a good point.

It doesn't have to get worse, staying the same isn't exactly great is it.

The companies on that list(which make up a small percentage of the list) that are foreign generate a lot of sales here in the US. Demand has fallen, now why would that be? Could it be people don't have the money to buy their products because it's going to other places like increased energy and food costs?


The majority of employers like Energizer and Boeing on that list announced the cuts on the 7th or 8th. There were a few that did earlier, but they were the minority. It doesn't really matter because these people are out of jobs. I never said that it was only(but I do believe it played a part because these businesses are not seeing good things ahead)  due to Obama's reelection, but a culmination of his first term. Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-monthly-payrolls-110212.gif)

I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
You can admit that you didn't know about the governmental approvals their new product had.  It seems strange that they would layoff employees after the "Big Government" candidate won.
Government encryption certification is a non-story, "dog bites man". It impresses non-techies who might not understand what that means, but that does not include yours truly. FIPS approval doesn't imply that government agencies will buy it, and as RIM already achieved this with their old products... it would only be a big deal if they failed.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 02:48:22 PM
really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.
Are you ignoring that the jobs numbers are from a different survey than the unemployment rate, or is it that you don't realize that they are different?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

BLS doesn't count?
OK, so it seems like the answer is that you don't realize that they are different.

The unemployment rate, and the "jobs numbers", are from two different surveys. That's why it is possible to have months where they appear to be contradicting each other. Jobs come from the payroll survey, unemployment rate comes from the household survey.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
You can admit that you didn't know about the governmental approvals their new product had.  It seems strange that they would layoff employees after the "Big Government" candidate won.
Government encryption certification is a non-story, "dog bites man". It impresses non-techies who might not understand what that means, but that does not include yours truly. FIPS approval doesn't imply that government agencies will buy it, and as RIM already achieved this with their old products... it would only be a big deal if they failed.

Again, not the actual point the point is that it is surprising given the governmental sales that they will be doing, i don't know why you are responding to arguments that nobody here is making.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.

really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.

come on angryguy, you are just being snarky there.
there are ups and downs, and what matters is the broader trend.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 02:55:30 PM
Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-monthly-payrolls-110212.gif)

I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 03:00:18 PM
Again, not the actual point the point is that it is surprising given the governmental sales that they will be doing, i don't know why you are responding to arguments that nobody here is making.
What government sales? You are conflating FIPS approval with purchases. Pentagon is expected to keep some significant number of BB's because of the security features, but other government agencies, contractors, and such are phasing out their Blackberry servers (ICE switched to iPhones, as an example). Outside government, private enterprise is flat-out running away from RIM at warp speed.

So how is it surprising that RIM makes layoffs when their userbase is evaporating? You can't run a company that size on a mere one million US government employees.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: PierceMVP08 on November 09, 2012, 03:02:28 PM
You can admit that you didn't know about the governmental approvals their new product had.  It seems strange that they would layoff employees after the "Big Government" candidate won.
Government encryption certification is a non-story, "dog bites man". It impresses non-techies who might not understand what that means, but that does not include yours truly. FIPS approval doesn't imply that government agencies will buy it, and as RIM already achieved this with their old products... it would only be a big deal if they failed.

Again, not the actual point the point is that it is surprising given the governmental sales that they will be doing, i don't know why you are responding to arguments that nobody here is making.

Doesn't this go against your very own argument?  If the success of RIM's new product is predicated heavily by government purchases, shouldn't the election of a "big government" president boost their prospects?  After all, the bigger the government, the more they will spend on the products.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Chris on November 09, 2012, 03:04:05 PM
Does Mike Brown count?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 03:06:10 PM
Does Mike Brown count?

Yup and it's because of Obama's re-election.  Nothing to do with business performance.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: PierceMVP08 on November 09, 2012, 03:12:10 PM
Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

Please reread said poster's replay and understand that he used one business as an example, and a tired line(non sequitur) to point out that the list I provided is meaningless.
No, it in fact undermines your entire point. Including RIM on that list, requires that one be completely ignorant of RIM's circumstances, which calls into question every other entry there.

It would be like I made a list of five-star restaurants, and included McDonald's. People would rightly suspect that I had no idea what I was talking about once they got to the Big Mac.

I'd expect the list to be questioned from those looking to make excuses for a failed economic policy.

I'm sure Energizer, Boeing, and Darden are run by complete morons. Yeah that's it, it's not bad policy, it's the business' fault.

I think the point is, you are throwing out a very short list  of companies who are laying people off since the election, then trying to say those layoffs are caused by 'bad policy'.  So first, there is absolutely no way to demonstrate causation - layoffs happen all the time.  Second, it ignores the thousands of other companies that make up the economy - as I mentioned before, many are hiring.


Mind you, this was just 48 hours after the election that these announcements were made. If these large businesses were feeling good about the economy and had a positive forecasts, they wouldn't be laying people off.


You can point to businesses hiring and I can point you to the unemployment rate and number of food stamp recipients.

No, it was 48 hours after the election that you cut and pasted this list.   Some - like RIM - havent even announced the alleged cuts.  Others - like Husqvarna - are foreign companies, so job cuts in Sweden probably arent indicative of Obama's failed policies.  Regardless, show me causation, show me the macro picture.

And if you can point to the unemployment rate to show that the business atmosphere is getting worse since the election I would be happy to look at it and acknowledge if it causes me to revise my opinion, or makes a good point.

It doesn't have to get worse, staying the same isn't exactly great is it.

The companies on that list(which make up a small percentage of the list) that are foreign generate a lot of sales here in the US. Demand has fallen, now why would that be? Could it be people don't have the money to buy their products because it's going to other places like increased energy and food costs?


The majority of employers like Energizer and Boeing on that list announced the cuts on the 7th or 8th. There were a few that did earlier, but they were the minority. It doesn't really matter because these people are out of jobs. I never said that it was only(but I do believe it played a part because these businesses are not seeing good things ahead)  due to Obama's reelection, but a culmination of his first term. Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

You mention Energizer and if you are familiar with the company and their strategies over the past years, you would know that they went all in, promoting the hell out of their products in an effort to grow market share.  That worked for a while and hopes were very high.  What they didn't see was that by giving away their products, they were growing on borrowed time.  It was only a matter of time before they would run out of money to continue to discount their products. It's caught up with them and now their bearing the brunt of it.  Without discounting their products they've suffered heavy losses.  Hence, poor management and strategy.

Now Boeing has a very limited market. Their market is heavily dominated by military spending and airlines, of course.  Everyone and their mother knows that airlines have been struggling mightily for years.  If they're not turning a profit, their likely not investing in new planes.  If they're not investing in new planes, Boeing is not selling.  If they're not selling, well you guessed it... layoffs must come.  How is that tied to the election of President Obama?

I have no understanding of what your corporate experience is, but layoffs are something that are considered in excruciating detail.  They are planned over the course of extended periods.  There is no responsible company that would announce massive layoffs after only considering it for a day.  The layoffs announced on the 7th and 8th were undoubtedly a long time in coming. 
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on November 09, 2012, 03:12:38 PM
Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-monthly-payrolls-110212.gif)

I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 03:14:23 PM
Again, not the actual point the point is that it is surprising given the governmental sales that they will be doing, i don't know why you are responding to arguments that nobody here is making.
What government sales? You are conflating FIPS approval with purchases. Pentagon is expected to keep some significant number of BB's because of the security features, but other government agencies, contractors, and such are phasing out their Blackberry servers (ICE switched to iPhones, as an example). Outside government, private enterprise is flat-out running away from RIM at warp speed.

So how is it surprising that RIM makes layoffs when their userbase is evaporating? You can't run a company that size on a mere one million US government employees.

Well first even you made the statement that it was surprising it hadn't happened sooner so there is one example.  Second they are the prominent supplier for more than just the US government, nobody has made the argument that they will only be operating their company on US governmental sales.  And even if it was just run on US government employees using their product their user base would not be shrinking with the rate that US Government employment will have to rise just to put obamacare into practice.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 03:15:56 PM
Need to take out gov't employment.
.... which will only make the numbers look better, since government employment has been steadily falling since Obama took office. That 171,000 figure goes UP, for example, since government jobs went down by ~9k if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Fafnir on November 09, 2012, 03:16:01 PM
Honestly any layoff announcements are probably just trying to do two things:

1. Dump the news when no one is paying attention (after the election)

2. Avoid becoming associated with the political fight and alienating a group of customers and/or investors.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 03:16:17 PM
With all due respect to fellow conservative AngryGuy, this an argument we conservatives aren't going to win.

* Obama supporters will not blame any current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

* If the economy does recover, Obama supporters will give all credit to him.

* If the economy doesn't recover, Obama supporters will continue to blame Bush and insist on more time and patience.

Sounds like a win-win for O.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 03:17:19 PM
Need to take out gov't employment.
.... which will only make the numbers look better, since government employment has been steadily falling since Obama took office.

Yep. One of the surprising things that one might not know if one only listened to certain talk show hosts.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 03:17:34 PM
Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-monthly-payrolls-110212.gif)

I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

Govt employment has shrunk.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gov_employ_obama_bush-e1347207776160.png)
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-monthly-payrolls-110212.gif)

I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

Govt employment has shrunk.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gov_employ_obama_bush-e1347207776160.png)

Much of that spike was Census, right?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 03:19:51 PM
Fair enough, you didnt say it was only the reelection.  But you did say "Sounds like the business community received a shot of confidence since the election".  So you were implying that his reelection caused those layoffs.  Whatever, I get your larger point - you think Obama's policies over the past four years have created a business climate that is bad for business and as a result businesses are laying people off.  I disagree.  The overall trend in employment over the past four years seems to be on my side.   

Job Growth:
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/images/chart-monthly-payrolls-110212.gif)

I never said the recovery was great.  But it is a recovery (you dont even need quotation marks!) and I will definitely take it.

^^This.

Thanks Obama!

Need to take out gov't employment.

Govt employment has shrunk.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gov_employ_obama_bush-e1347207776160.png)

Much of that spike was Census, right?

Yes, that was all the Census.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 03:21:36 PM

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gov_employ_obama_bush-e1347207776160.png)


^^An amazing thing to see: Government employment rises under a Republican, and falls under a Democrat.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 03:24:50 PM

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gov_employ_obama_bush-e1347207776160.png)


^^An amazing thing to see: Government employment rises under a Republican, and falls under a Democrat.


To be fair, that's government employment at all levels, not just federal.  But yeah, not the trend you'd expect.

What's really weird is that federal employment is lower today  - in total numbers, not just % - than it was 50 years ago.  Or at any point under Reagan.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 03:26:37 PM
Well first even you made the statement that it was surprising it hadn't happened sooner so there is one example.  Second they are the prominent supplier for more than just the US government, nobody has made the argument that they will only be operating their company on US governmental sales.  And even if it was just run on US government employees using their product their user base would not be shrinking with the rate that US Government employment will have to rise just to put obamacare into practice.
I am not playing this game.

This poster was accused of not following RIM, and it appears that the accuser was the one who was behind on the times. RIM is a mess, I have more than proved it with a fusillade of publicly-available information about the state of the company. Blaming any of RIM's woes on Obama, is utterly hilarious.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
With all due respect to fellow conservative AngryGuy, this an argument we conservatives aren't going to win.

* Obama supporters will not blame any current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

* If the economy does recover, Obama supporters will give all credit to him.

* If the economy doesn't recover, Obama supporters will continue to blame Bush and insist on more time and patience.

Sounds like a win-win for O.

How about just having an honest conversation about it?  Maybe some Obama policies (like health care) have caused some layoffs.  Are the benefits of health care reform worth the costs?  Is the deficit spending worth the stimulus effect?  I would say yes to both, but am open to listening to the alternative and feel like there are some valid concerns on the other side.

When you start cut and pasting from Rush I think you are not really engaged in a real dialogue.  You are just trying to score some political points.

Does Obama deserve all the credit for the recovery?  No, but he deserves some.  He handled the crisis well.  Not outstanding, but we are on the right track.  Flipping your argument around

 ~"Obama detractors will blame all current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do. If the economy does recover, Obama detractors will give no credit to him.  If the economy doesn't recover, Obama detractors will ignore the impact of the financial crisis."

Any problem with that?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 03:28:33 PM
* Obama supporters will not blame any current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do.
I blame the layoffs of state-level government employees on him. The ARRA was not equal to the task, which is ultimately his fault in part.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 03:35:02 PM
Well first even you made the statement that it was surprising it hadn't happened sooner so there is one example.  Second they are the prominent supplier for more than just the US government, nobody has made the argument that they will only be operating their company on US governmental sales.  And even if it was just run on US government employees using their product their user base would not be shrinking with the rate that US Government employment will have to rise just to put obamacare into practice.
I am not playing this game.

This poster was accused of not following RIM, and it appears that the accuser was the one who was behind on the times. RIM is a mess, I have more than proved it with a fusillade of publicly-available information about the state of the company. Blaming any of RIM's woes on Obama, is utterly hilarious.

Im not sure what game you are referring to, but it looks to me like you made a strong statement without any justification and then proceeded to respond to arguments that nobody was making rather than backup your initial strong statement.  I would suggest not making those statements in the future if you cannot back them up.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: nickagneta on November 09, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
Does this really matter if the next few jobs reports show more growth?

Companies lay off people all the time but other companies are currently hiring simultaneously. What is important is, what is the total net effect, positive or negative?

I believe any month over the last 4 years anyone could have put together a list of companies showing their layoffs. But the cycle of net negative job growth has turned around. If over the next few months it continues this whole conspiracy that these private companies with held the info to help the President will look really, really more ridiculous than it already does.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: LooseCannon on November 09, 2012, 03:48:52 PM
Im not sure what game you are referring to, but it looks to me like you made a strong statement without any justification and then proceeded to respond to arguments that nobody was making rather than backup your initial strong statement.  I would suggest not making those statements in the future if you cannot back them up.

I wish whoever started this thread would take that advice.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 03:50:29 PM
Alright, knock it off with the shots at each other.  
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 03:51:45 PM
Guess we didn't need the auto bailout or green energy incentives huh.
I'll interpret this abrupt change of the subject as you conceding the point.

Creative destruction is important for capitalism, and and happens even in recoveries. Nobody would ever argue that bad companies only exist during recessions, after all.

You didn't disagree with me, you said that I wasn't paying attention to the company.  I'm sorry that you made such a strong statement without any justification and then ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Once again:

Well it does seem like strange timing considering how long they have been shooting themselves in the foot as you mentioned and considering they will be releasing a product that they have been developing for the past 1.5 years in early 2013
It only seems like strange timing to people who haven't been following RIM for years. I am amazed that they've lasted this long. I can't wait to see the turd that they release next year.

I don't see how you can consider this timing strange, unless you haven't been following how badly RIM has been doing. This is a company that is bleeding from every orifice. Layoffs should be obvious, not strange. If they are strange, it's only strange that they haven't happened sooner.

Hey, I'm just guessing what you believe based on your statements like this one

Quote
This is how capitalism works: failed companies fail. The capital goes into more productive uses

But I guess you can have it both ways.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: action781 on November 09, 2012, 03:53:03 PM
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.

really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.

If the global temperature this month decreases by a tenth of a degree from last year, are you willing to throw out the notion of global warming?



I only looked up a few companies on the list before I got tired.

Westinghouse Anniston laid off 50 workers because they are ahead of schedule (http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/20755025/article-More-layoffs-announced-at-Anniston-weapons-incinerator?instance=1st_left) in closing down a chemical weapons incineration plant.

Lightyear Network Solutions informed workers on the day before the election (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c617c51e787d4b86ae32d09ca679c272/KY--Lightyear-Layoffs) that they were letting them go.

The Providence Journal's layoffs (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194919/3-photographers-among-those-laid-off-at-providence-journal/) were because not enough workers took buyouts in Septeber (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/187794/providence-journal-to-cut-staff/).

At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

Not saying it's just because he's been reelected, although that is a factor, but it's mainly a result of his failed policies.

If you're not saying it's just because he's been reelected, then why does the title specifically mention "since election"
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 03:58:59 PM
With all due respect to fellow conservative AngryGuy, this an argument we conservatives aren't going to win.

* Obama supporters will not blame any current layoffs on him, regardless of what he does or doesn't do.

* If the economy does recover, Obama supporters will give all credit to him.

* If the economy doesn't recover, Obama supporters will continue to blame Bush and insist on more time and patience.

Sounds like a win-win for O.

I realize this, but debating makes the day go by.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 04:03:23 PM
it looks to me like you made a strong statement without any justification and then proceeded to respond to arguments that nobody was making rather than backup your initial strong statement.
Certainly not. I stand behind what I said. There is nothing "strange" about the timing of layoffs from a flailing company. You'd have to be ignorant of their performance for the last few years to be surprised by this news. An expected event at a coincidental moment is not "strange", it is a "coincidence". RIM has been staring down the barrel of this gun for quite some time.

It gets worse the further you drill down. They are losing government business, not expanding it. FIPS approval is no better than what they were already capable of with their old technology.

There's no defense of the notion that this is some "strange" event.

Hey, I'm just guessing what you believe
This is not a good idea.

Does this really matter if the next few jobs reports show more growth?

Companies lay off people all the time but other companies are currently hiring simultaneously. What is important is, what is the total net effect, positive or negative?

I believe any month over the last 4 years anyone could have put together a list of companies showing their layoffs. But the cycle of net negative job growth has turned around. If over the next few months it continues this whole conspiracy that these private companies with held the info to help the President will look really, really more ridiculous than it already does.
Companies laying off people is the foundation of efficient markets. Conservatives should be making this argument in advance, which makes lists like this especially absurd. Absolutely the net growth is what's important, not individual performances of particular struggling companies.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 04:14:04 PM
Strange these large companies are not adding jobs during a "recovery".

Why is it strange? Some companies are hiring, some are firing, some are spending money on capital improvements, others are not.  When you net it all out, as we see from the monthly job numbers, companies are doing more hiring than firing. End of story.

really becuase the rate was at 7.8 in Oct(remember, it was a sign the economy was improving) and now it's at 7.9.  My math is a bit shaky, but if more jobs are being added, I don't think the rate would increase.

If the global temperature this month decreases by a tenth of a degree from last year, are you willing to throw out the notion of global warming?



I only looked up a few companies on the list before I got tired.

Westinghouse Anniston laid off 50 workers because they are ahead of schedule (http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/20755025/article-More-layoffs-announced-at-Anniston-weapons-incinerator?instance=1st_left) in closing down a chemical weapons incineration plant.

Lightyear Network Solutions informed workers on the day before the election (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c617c51e787d4b86ae32d09ca679c272/KY--Lightyear-Layoffs) that they were letting them go.

The Providence Journal's layoffs (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/194919/3-photographers-among-those-laid-off-at-providence-journal/) were because not enough workers took buyouts in Septeber (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/187794/providence-journal-to-cut-staff/).

At this point, I got tired of looking up companies on the list, but it's clear that whoever put it together is either a lazy idiot or a deceitful, misleading partisan if the intent is to make it look like these jobs were lost because Obama was re-elected.

Not saying it's just because he's been reelected, although that is a factor, but it's mainly a result of his failed policies.

If you're not saying it's just because he's been reelected, then why does the title specifically mention "since election"

Because I believe it has to do with the election and overall policy. With tax hikes coming, businesses are not going to have the confidence they would have under a more pro-business administration. I'm not going to argue which is the greater catalyst for the layoffs.

Businesses forecast and they know Obamacare isn't going anywhere and they will react-see Darden. They know the trend of lower wages will continue and have an impact on their profits. People are not grasping how much taxes are going to go up and what effect that will have on businesses.

Take this story for example

Quote

Boston Scientific anticipates $100 million in additional taxes next year, with layoffs to follow. Medtronic estimates a $175 million loss in 2013 and will cut 1,000 workers. Stryker plans 1,170 job cuts.

Other medical manufacturers will follow: Smith & Nephew, with 770 layoffs; Abbott Labs, 700; Covidien, 595; Kinetic Concepts, 427; St. Jude Medical, 300; Welch Allyn 275; and Hill Rom, 200.

In January, medical device manufacturers in the U.S. will be asked to take a 2.3 percent hit to their bottom line in the form of a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices, part of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

The 2.3 percent tax will be imposed on gross sales of products from elastic bandages to pacemakers to imaging systems. Although the tax is intended to raise $28.5 billion over 10 years to help cover the costs of Obamacare, opponents warn there will be unintended consequences.

Not all medical manufacturers are multinational, multibillion dollar conglomerates that won't feel a 2.3 percent pinch. It may sound like a small amount, but 2.3 percent of gross sales is equivalent to about 15 percent in gross profit. In a medium- or small-sized company, 15 percent of gross profit could be the entire budget of a product team. Some could be literally taxed out of business.

The industry won't stand idle to "pay their fair share" either. Corporations will simply move their operations where they can enjoy a lower tax burden. Since the U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, isn't the "fair share" burden already being met?

Medical companies are taking the hint. Cook Medical put plans for five new U.S. manufacturing facilities on hold and will likely redirect growth overseas. Boston Scientific recently announced a $150 million investment in China over the next five years for new manufacturing facilities and 1,000 employees.





Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 04:37:04 PM
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky, and I do apologize for that.

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped," or something along those lines, and I've lost track of how many times he and his surrogates have stated some form of the phrase "All these problems are Bush's fault."

So I'm glad to hear a couple of you admit that Obama's plans haven't always been effective.

I really do want a serious conversation about these things—those of us here on CB and everyone across the country—but I've become a bit influenced, it seems, by the general snarkiness of the mainstream media and conservative talk radio. I realize that topics such as this involve some sensitive topics, personal ideologies, etc., but I really don't wish to worsen the conversation. Again, I apologize for my part in that.

A key problem, though, is that most people—and especially politicians (of every stripe)—don't want to admit when they've been wrong. It's all about scoring political points, and making sure your party stays in power. Unless that attitude changes, our problems will not be solved and the country will not advance.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: LooseCannon on November 09, 2012, 04:40:59 PM
Some guy posted on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12wyyn/yesterday_i_was_laid_off_because_president_obama/):

Quote
I worked at a coal mine that decided today to layoff over 40 employees and the only reason that was given was that "America has betrayed coal miners" by re-electing President Obama. Despite the fact that nothing has changed in the two days since the election they decide to lay off employees. I've seen how corrupt the company can be over the years and am fairly certain the layoffs are just a way to make the President look bad. I look forward to your questions and will do my best to answer them all.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky, and I do apologize for that.

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped," or something along those lines, and I've lost track of how many times he and his surrogates have stated some form of the phrase "All these problems are Bush's fault."

So I'm glad to hear a couple of you admit that Obama's plans haven't always been effective.

I really do want a serious conversation about these things—those of us here on CB and everyone across the country—but I've become a bit influenced, it seems, by the general snarkiness of the mainstream media and conservative talk radio. I realize that topics such as this involve some sensitive topics, personal ideologies, etc., but I really don't wish to worsen the conversation. Again, I apologize for my part in that.

A key problem, though, is that most people—and especially politicians (of every stripe)—don't want to admit when they've been wrong. It's all about scoring political points, and making sure your party stays in power. Unless that attitude changes, our problems will not be solved and the country will not advance.

Here you go:

“Now knowing how much worse the storm was, people look back and say, you guys undershot,” sighs Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “But we didn’t think we were undershooting at the time. We thought that the dominant strategy had to be massive, overwhelming force. There were political limits to what we could do, but we thought we were operating to expand the scope of those limits. I used to say to people, ‘Which mistake is harder to correct: doing too much, or doing too little?’ ”

I hope you can also step back and look at Obama's character through a different lens as well.  Maybe it wont change your mind, but at least give you a perspective on why people disagree with your characterization of him. 
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 04:59:30 PM
But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped,"
If you stray outside the conservative blogosphere, you'd notice that liberals have been calling for Obama's head on this issue, Paul Krugman most famously.

Obama himself will attribute it to 1) the recession being worse than what was expected (which is defensible), or 2) not predicting the depths of Republican intransigence and supposing that he'd have a second bite at the apple if the first ARRA didn't do the trick (also defensible). "Off the record" comments are the only place where you'll hear the idea that the stimulus was not properly put together in the first place.

I don't know if that's because Obama actually doesn't believe it, or because he doesn't want to get beat up on it, but it is what it is: the administration is standing behind their decision.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 05:21:45 PM
Yeah, I was being a bit snarky, and I do apologize for that.

But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped," or something along those lines, and I've lost track of how many times he and his surrogates have stated some form of the phrase "All these problems are Bush's fault."

So I'm glad to hear a couple of you admit that Obama's plans haven't always been effective.

I really do want a serious conversation about these things—those of us here on CB and everyone across the country—but I've become a bit influenced, it seems, by the general snarkiness of the mainstream media and conservative talk radio. I realize that topics such as this involve some sensitive topics, personal ideologies, etc., but I really don't wish to worsen the conversation. Again, I apologize for my part in that.

A key problem, though, is that most people—and especially politicians (of every stripe)—don't want to admit when they've been wrong. It's all about scoring political points, and making sure your party stays in power. Unless that attitude changes, our problems will not be solved and the country will not advance.

Here you go:

“Now knowing how much worse the storm was, people look back and say, you guys undershot,” sighs Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “But we didn’t think we were undershooting at the time. We thought that the dominant strategy had to be massive, overwhelming force. There were political limits to what we could do, but we thought we were operating to expand the scope of those limits. I used to say to people, ‘Which mistake is harder to correct: doing too much, or doing too little?’ ”

I hope you can also step back and look at Obama's character through a different lens as well.  Maybe it wont change your mind, but at least give you a perspective on why people disagree with your characterization of him.

That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.

As far as Mr. Obama's character, I look at it through the lens of his own history.

His prep grades were mediocre, yet with the help of affirmative action policies, he had no problem taking a more-deserving person's spot in two of the best universities in the country.

The man who hired him to be a community organizer asked him if he'd be willing to live among the people he was supposed to be helping, but Obama chose to remain in his nice Hyde Park home. To me, that shows a lack of commitment and genuine concern, and that he was more interested in padding his resume.

He took the job of Harvard Law Review editor despite never having written an article for it, and having almost no writing or editing experience. To me, this shows a lack of personal and professional integrity, and again makes it seem to me like he just wanted to pad his resume. Some people surmise that this appointment, too, was a result of affirmative action.

When Mr. Obama was still as unknown as you or I, he accepted a $125,000 advance to write a book about race relations. Despite his biracial heritage, he really had little experience in race relations, certainly not enough to write a book about it, nor did he have the writing and editing chops for it. But he took the publisher's money anyway—then proceeded to spend a good deal of it on a vacation for him and Michelle in Bali. When the publisher balked, Mr. Obama pleaded for another chance, the publisher gave him another advance—this time for $40,000—and he produced not a book on race relations but a memoir, which many linguistic experts claim was actually written by Mr. Obama's unrepentant-terrorist friend Bill Ayers. Lack of integrity and character all around, there.

To this very day, Mr. Obama continues to say that he was a constitutional law professor, when he was only a lecturer; I work at a university, so I know there's a big difference between the two. And according to many folks who knew him and worked with him at the time, he was a fairly poor lecturer, at that. So Mr. Obama is a liar.

Mr. Obama also attended the church of a black radical for nearly two decades, yet claimed that he never heard Jeremiah Wright make any inflammatory or racist statements. This, to me, is simply not believable.

So when I look at those things, as well as others, I see numerous evidence, a repeating pattern, of bad character. This is not what I want in a president, and it's sad and disappointing than anyone would support such a person being our leader.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 05:25:28 PM
That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.
This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Quote
Mr. Obama's character
Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 05:26:45 PM
But I honestly have never heard Obama or any of his staffers/representatives come out and say, "Look, the stimulus wasn't as effective as we hoped,"
If you stray outside the conservative blogosphere, you'd notice that liberals have been calling for Obama's head on this issue, Paul Krugman most famously.

Obama himself will attribute it to 1) the recession being worse than what was expected (which is defensible), or 2) not predicting the depths of Republican intransigence and supposing that he'd have a second bite at the apple if the first ARRA didn't do the trick (also defensible). "Off the record" comments are the only place where you'll hear the idea that the stimulus was not properly put together in the first place.

I don't know if that's because Obama actually doesn't believe it, or because he doesn't want to get beat up on it, but it is what it is: the administration is standing behind their decision.

The only conservative blog I've ever made a habit of reading is Townhall.com. Most of my news reading comes from mainstream news sites, such as those of local CBS affiliates, and they're not conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

The stimulus was just one example, anyway. Though it does sort of go to the heart of the issue: Mr. Obama seems to believe that the state is the solution to most problems, and that continuing to spend like mad is the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 09, 2012, 05:27:00 PM
I very well may be wrong here but I feel as though this thread is a bit of a sour grapes thread started because the OP's candidate did not get elected.  This is just my opinion but I am pretty confident that these layoffs were bound to happen regardless of who won the election.  I am equally as confident that had Romney won the election and these layoffs were to happen that we would have had a very similar sour grapes thread started by one of our Democrat members.  It is my hope that now that the election is over that politicians from the opposing parties are more willing to listen to each other and work together than the members of Celticsblog from opposing parties seem to be willing to do.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 05:32:05 PM
That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.
This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Quote
Mr. Obama's character
Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

I didn't bring up the issue of character, Bombastic Jones did.

And I don't see it as picking and choosing. I accept it as evidence, and I'm truly glad it was pointed out to me. My point was that, on the whole, the Obama administration never put off a general vibe of admitting that the plan didn't work; in fact, the message I kept hearing was that more of the same type of spending was needed, which could easily lead one to think that there was no admitting to the initial plan being something of a failure.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 09, 2012, 05:40:52 PM
That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.
This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Quote
Mr. Obama's character
Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

I didn't bring up the issue of character, Bombastic Jones did.

And I don't see it as picking and choosing. I accept it as evidence, and I'm truly glad it was pointed out to me. My point was that, on the whole, the Obama administration never put off a general vibe of admitting that the plan didn't work; in fact, the message I kept hearing was that more of the same type of spending was needed, which could easily lead one to think that there was no admitting to the initial plan being something of a failure.

My bad.  Since you were conciliatory, and stated you did not want to worsen the conversation, I thought would be a natural issue to reassess.  I agree though that this thread doesnt need to go down that route.  The other thread you started can continue to host that debate quite suitably.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 05:47:17 PM
That's good to read, and thanks for sharing it. I don't think, though, that such an admission was a point of emphasis for the administration. It certainly wasn't trumpeted by the mainstream media.
This is picking and choosing what you are willing to accept as evidence. Geithner said it, if you aren't willing to take it at face value, it's impossible to have a discussion about it.

Quote
Mr. Obama's character
Has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

I didn't bring up the issue of character, Bombastic Jones did.

And I don't see it as picking and choosing. I accept it as evidence, and I'm truly glad it was pointed out to me. My point was that, on the whole, the Obama administration never put off a general vibe of admitting that the plan didn't work; in fact, the message I kept hearing was that more of the same type of spending was needed, which could easily lead one to think that there was no admitting to the initial plan being something of a failure.

My bad.  Since you were conciliatory, and stated you did not want to worsen the conversation, I thought would be a natural issue to reassess.  I agree though that this thread doesnt need to go down that route.  The other thread you started can continue to host that debate quite suitably.  Sorry about that.

No worries.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 09, 2012, 05:49:02 PM
I will say that since the election, I've come to feel that there is at least some hope that Mr. Boehner and Mr. Obama (or their representatives) can work something out.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Bombastic Jones on December 07, 2012, 11:45:16 AM
146,000 new jobs.  7.7% unemployment. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578164981319314860.html)  Downward revision might occur due to Sandy related missed work.  All of the gains came in the private sector.  Clearly the recovery continues.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: angryguy77 on December 07, 2012, 12:41:22 PM
146,000 new jobs.  7.7% unemployment. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578164981319314860.html)  Downward revision might occur due to Sandy related missed work.  All of the gains came in the private sector.  Clearly the recovery continues.

Quote
The report released Friday by the Labor Department also showed the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest level in four years. But the drop came largely from a decline in the number of people seeking work and counted as officially unemployed

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?hp&_r=0)

This isn't great news nor is it encouraging.

Quote
The Labor Department revised job growth in previous months downward somewhat. October growth fell to 138,000 from an initial estimate 171,000, and September’s declined to 132,000 from 148,000.

Can't imagine what this latest number will look like after it's revised.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on December 07, 2012, 01:00:25 PM
This isn't great news nor is it encouraging.
It's better than bad news, and the lack of bad news is actually sort of encouraging.

Quote
Can't imagine what this latest number will look like after it's revised.
It'll probably be a two to three digit number with trailing zeroes.

I wouldn't obsess over the month-to-month numbers, really. They are wildly inaccurate, and subject to huge swings in both directions upon revision. Pay more attention to the ones where they look back a year, which are more precise.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: the_Bird on December 07, 2012, 01:05:45 PM
146,000 new jobs.  7.7% unemployment. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578164981319314860.html)  Downward revision might occur due to Sandy related missed work.  All of the gains came in the private sector.  Clearly the recovery continues.

Quote
The report released Friday by the Labor Department also showed the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest level in four years. But the drop came largely from a decline in the number of people seeking work and counted as officially unemployed

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?hp&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/business/economy/us-creates-146000-new-jobs-as-unemployment-rate-falls-to-7-7.html?hp&_r=0)

This isn't great news nor is it encouraging.

Quote
The Labor Department revised job growth in previous months downward somewhat. October growth fell to 138,000 from an initial estimate 171,000, and September’s declined to 132,000 from 148,000.

Can't imagine what this latest number will look like after it's revised.

Keep in mind, all of October's revision was in public sector employment; the change in private payrolls was revised up, from 184k to 189k.  I'm a lot more concerned with the private sector than I am with government employees; hell, if the number of public sector job growth was smaller than originally thought, in some ways that's a [dang] good thing!
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 10, 2012, 04:52:45 PM
Workforce continues to shrink. This is not meaningful until the number is growing normalized to the workforce.

Simple math example:

100 ppl are working or looking for work (let's say 90/10): 10% unemployment


Economy gets bad.

10 people get laid off (80/20): 20% unemployment

5 people get jobs (85/15): 15% unemployment

10 people leave the workforce (85/5): 5.6% unemployment

Hey things are better than when we started!! Not true. 5 less people have jobs, even though the rate has gone up.

(Bonus points: calculate public sector (takers) and private sector (producers) separately -- uh oh, things look even crappier.)
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: kozlodoev on December 10, 2012, 05:01:20 PM
Not all departures from the workforce are created equal. It is no secret that we're entering a period when you'll see the baby boomers retire.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 11, 2012, 12:02:51 PM
Not all departures from the workforce are created equal. It is no secret that we're entering a period when you'll see the baby boomers retire.
It's also no secret that if you look at the age breakdown of workers, older people are working longer and have better employment numbers.

I don't have detailed stats to prove this, but I'd be shocked if "old age" type exits or controlling for normal exits in strong economies make sense. And given that young people don't stop getting old enough to enter the workforce, I'd guess "good exits" are very low.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on December 11, 2012, 12:37:55 PM
I don't have detailed stats to prove this, but I'd be shocked if "old age" type exits or controlling for normal exits in strong economies make sense. And given that young people don't stop getting old enough to enter the workforce, I'd guess "good exits" are very low.
It should be a red flag that you don't have the stats to support your hypothesis. I've linked this before, I'll link it again: Constant-demography Employment (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/constant-demography-employment-wonkish-but-relevant/). Shows his work, explains the decisions he made, etc.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 11, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
I don't have detailed stats to prove this, but I'd be shocked if "old age" type exits or controlling for normal exits in strong economies make sense. And given that young people don't stop getting old enough to enter the workforce, I'd guess "good exits" are very low.
It should be a red flag that you don't have the stats to support your hypothesis. I've linked this before, I'll link it again: Constant-demography Employment (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/constant-demography-employment-wonkish-but-relevant/). Shows his work, explains the decisions he made, etc.
He doesn't deal with it either. He cuts at 55, precisely covering up what I was saying: older people are either going back to work and/or delaying retirement. Which means the shrinking workforce is worse relative to the old age "good" leaving the workforce measure.

Bigger picture: Krugman has no credibility with me.

BTW "I don't have the data" = just that, I don't have the data right now. I've seen plenty of analysis showing the economic recovery as defined by shrinking unemployment is totally fake. We're not even close to back where we were with Bush, AND we're way behind with slower ramp previous recessions.

I hope things get a lot better, I know they are not currently.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Interceptor on December 11, 2012, 01:28:55 PM
He doesn't deal with it either. He cuts at 55, precisely covering up what I was saying: older people are either going back to work and/or delaying retirement. Which means the shrinking workforce is worse relative to the old age "good" leaving the workforce measure.
He did no such thing. Read the linked content again.

Quote
Bigger picture: Krugman has no credibility with me.
I don't see what relevance that this has to anything. This is an ad hominem unless there is a specific fudging of data in the example.

Karl Rove has no credibility with me, but if he says that 2 + 2 = 4 and shows his work, I am not going to throw out his proof just because I think he looks like a canned ham in a suit.

Quote
BTW "I don't have the data" = just that, I don't have the data right now. I've seen plenty of analysis showing the economic recovery as defined by shrinking unemployment is totally fake. We're not even close to back where we were with Bush, AND we're way behind with slower ramp previous recessions.
This thread will still be here when you find your evidence.

Quote
I hope things get a lot better, I know they are not currently.
Things are getting better. They are not getting better as fast as we'd like, but that's really not the point in contention.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: nickagneta on December 11, 2012, 01:43:38 PM
While people are working later in life, people are not working later in life at the same jobs or even in the same careers that they started in unless they are professionals like lawyers or doctors.

Corporate America is always having higher paid mid level management types taking early retirement so they can hire college grads at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. Since these types have also had their retirements obliterated by the stock market in recent years, they also have to work, so they are grabbing much lesser paying jobs or part time jobs to offset the decrease in income level.

Corporate America, simply put, doesn't allow employees to work for them for 40-50 years anymore or deep into their 60's or early 70's. The get rid of them with early retirements and talks of downsizing and then hire younger workers. Unless you are a CEO, COO, or major officer at a corporation, you aren't going to be growing old there. Not in today's employment market.

So, I do believe that a good portion of the people who stop looking for work are older, close to retirement age people. Yes, you here a lot about the people who stop looking and become homeless and so forth, but I believe they are in the minority as compared to the older workers that decide that the world is telling them its time to retire.

BTW, this exact thing has happened to 4 people I know including my father and that's why they left the workforce. I know no one who has been unemployed for such a long period of time that they gave up trying to find work.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 10:13:03 AM
Alright I spent a few minutes googling, I think heritage has a good analysis of why a declining labor market is bad, and shows that the unemployment improvement is due to lower participation:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/07/unemployment-rate-drop-due-to-workers-leaving-labor-force/

Other things Krugman didn't unpack are part time workers seeking full time.

We're in a recovery, things are getting better slowly, unfortunately the labor market isn't one of them (yet).


Also this was ripe:
Quote
I don't see what relevance that this has to anything. This is an ad hominem unless there is a specific fudging of data in the example.
It's actually a logical fallacy in the context of this argument. But I read his thing and it seems like he's measuring the prime earning ears and then normalizing, which I think would fudge the numbers up some, but I'm not 100% sure.

Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 10:28:43 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: action781 on December 12, 2012, 10:32:57 AM
Do we have a "hiring announcements since election" thread?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 10:44:52 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 10:50:39 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 10:53:49 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

Also, the only sources they link to in their own 'analysis' are previous articles and sources from the Heritage foundation?

I feel dirty just clicking on the link.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2012, 10:57:51 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

Should he have contributed something substantive like "Bigger picture: Heritage Foundation has zero credibility with me"? 

I read the blog post and I can't say there's anything wrong with the "analysis" because I can't find one. This is a listing of basic descriptive statistics available in every other jobs report summary, interwoven with a brief, pessimistic narrative.  That's not an analysis, it's a story.

The only bit I hadn't heard repeatedly before is the increase in disability claims, which is interesting but I'd need to see analyzed from a 3rd party source.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: KGs Knee on December 12, 2012, 11:02:10 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

So, the viewpoint of an extremely liberal partisan, such as yourself, carries any more validity?  I've seen you, yourself, criticize this exact type of sentiment from "the other side".

I agree the link from heritage is not a great example of anything, the article linked was lacking in supporting data.  I have seen enough data elsewhere to support the idea, though.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: fairweatherfan on December 12, 2012, 11:07:32 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

So, the viewpoint of an extremely liberal partisan, such as yourself, carries any more validity?  I've seen you, yourself, criticize this exact type of sentiment from "the other side".

I agree the link from heritage is not a great example of anything, the article linked was lacking in supporting data.  I have seen enough data elsewhere to support the idea, though.

I don't like that kind of broad dismissal of a source either - at least Heritage sometimes tries to conduct actual analysis, with math and charts and everything, which puts them a notch above the vast majority of the conservative media. 

But Heritage's actual analyses (which this blog post isn't) are pretty consistently terrible.  The crown jewel was when they projected the Bush tax cuts would completely eliminate the national debt by 2010. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/the-economic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan)
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 11:11:35 AM
Its not shocking that the biggest conservative think tank in the US would have a rationality that makes good job numbers look bad.
You aren't adding anything to the debate. What's wrong with the analysis? Did you read it?

The analysis is from a conservative think-tank. That's what I'm adding. I'm saying your source is suspect because it has an explicit and often extremely conservative and partisan agenda.

So, the viewpoint of an extremely liberal partisan, such as yourself, carries any more validity?  I've seen you, yourself, criticize this exact type of sentiment from "the other side".

You've seen me criticize people who called liberal think tanks 'biased'? I really think you're misremembering something there.

And extremely liberal partisan? Whoa whoa, mister labels. Glass houses, stones.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: KGs Knee on December 12, 2012, 11:32:19 AM
And extremely liberal partisan? Whoa whoa, mister labels. Glass houses, stones.

I didn't mean it as a "negative".  Just an observation, based on your history of posts here.  I just found your original statement ironic.

If you found it offensive, I apologize.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 11:42:24 AM
And extremely liberal partisan? Whoa whoa, mister labels. Glass houses, stones.

I didn't mean it as a "negative".  Just an observation, based on your history of posts here.  I just found your original statement ironic.

If you found it offensive, I apologize.

Well even if we look past your labeling of me, its not exactly apples to apples as a comparison of 'sources'.

I can't speak from a position of authority because I am fact just some guy, with biases and prejudices, like anyone else. If I say something that isn't a known fact in a debate, I'd expect someone to ask for a neutral source corroborating it. It happens literally all the time in these forums.

Like for instance if you woudl've said, 'why do you think the Heritage Foundation isn't an acceptable source?', I would've dug up things that support my statement.

So my own credibility as source material is kind of irrelevant.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 12:11:14 PM
I said Krugman has zero credibility generally - but I did first read his analysis (and the top comments on his article) and first post what I saw wrong with that analysis. Doesn't compare with saying "that's a right wing site". Reason I brought it up is IP has done this to me something like 8m times in the last week  ;D - I have never seen IP criticize someone for pointing out a left wing site when linked, but he does deny MSM is biased (again  ;D).

Here's the Heritage analysis for people who don't want to click a link, because they might feel dirty:

1. Unemployment rate fell to 7.7% in Nov
2. This is due to 146k new jobs and 350k leaving the workforce
3. 146k jobs is good (but tempered by revisions to previous reports of -45k)
4. Population growth means you need 125k new jobs per month to tread water
5. Extrapolating this out - growth is so slow it will take 5 years to get back to full employment

Conclusion: while the economy is in recovery, the recovery is a very anemic one.

Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 12:29:23 PM
Reason I brought it up is IP has done this to me something like 8m times in the last week  ;D - I have never seen IP criticize someone for pointing out a left wing site when linked, but he does deny MSM is biased (again  ;D).

That is factually untrue.

A) I'm going to need some evidence for the 8million number. Not calling you a lyre, but just saying, I think its off.

B) If someone posts a left-wing site for something I actually want to use, I will typically go find the MSM equivalent (because someone will say, "Well that's not exactly a quality source"). If the best I can do is Huff Post, usually I'll say something like 'The best we've got is Huff Post for right now, so take it for what its worth. I have a hard time thinking we have the whole story though if none of the major players pick it up.'

Quote
Here's the Heritage analysis for people who don't want to click a link, because they might feel dirty:

1. Unemployment rate fell to 7.7% in Nov
2. This is due to 146k new jobs and 350k leaving the workforce
3. 146k jobs is good (but tempered by revisions to previous reports of -45k)
4. Population growth means you need 125k new jobs per month to tread water
5. Extrapolating this out - growth is so slow it will take 5 years to get back to full employment

Conclusion: while the economy is in recovery, the recovery is a very anemic one.

I think nobody is contesting that the recovery is slower than everyone would want. 'Very anemic' strikes me as a bit hyperbolic though.

Also, I read the 'full employment' claim, and I am wondering what the basis for that was. If you follow the link (http://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator/), it brings you to a Jobs Calculator little web app from the Fed Reserve Bank of Atlanta without giving you the numbers the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation actually used.

So we don't know what the 'desired employment' was, we don't know what they used as their 'changeable assumptions'.

But, they credit it to the Federal Reserve Bank Of Atlanta, like they were the ones who actually put in the numbers and made the 'findings'.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 01:23:46 PM
Full employment is well defined by economists, not a partisan made up number by Heritage. http://bit.ly/TPkLcu
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
Full employment is well defined by economists, not a partisan made up number by Heritage. http://bit.ly/TPkLcu

So then what % is 'Full Employment'?
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 02:27:29 PM
Quote
Now, what do we mean by full employment at decent jobs? Full employment, in my view, a realistic definition is below 4 percent as officially measured by the government. And why is that my threshold? Why below 4 percent? Because what we've seen in the 1960s when we got below 4 percent, and again in the late 1990s when we got below 4 percent, you see a decisive change in the labor market dynamics, such that workers' wages go up pretty significantly, even in the late 1990s.
This is a quick google result: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10918-bob-pollin-the-full-employment-debate

IANAE - so I don't know the full math version.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Neurotic Guy on December 12, 2012, 04:15:27 PM
I was laid off once in my life.  It was in 1984 at the height of Reaganomics.  The business I was in was laying people off even though unemployment in general was going down.   The fact that some companies are laying off now tells only part of the story.   

Of course, it isn't the OPs job to be a non-biased reporter, but he does illustrate how biased reporting can be persuasive in the absence of thorough reporting.  Both sides can do it, watch:

Obama took over when the unemployment rate was 8.5% and we were in full-blown recession following the Bush years which had highlighted policies of lowering taxes rates and deregulating Wall Street and the banking industry.  Reeling from the recession, unemployment rates continued to rise to 9.6% in August of 2009.  8 months into Obama's first term the unemployment rate began to turn downward.  In Novemebr of 2012, little more than 3 years since the era's peak, the unemployment rate is 7.7%.

My blurb doesn't tell the whole story either.  But on its surface seems to tell a story of improvement.  Just as the OPs sliver of info seems to tell a story of things going downhill.   

Both spins are unecessary.  We all know that we are in slow growth, that the fiscal situation will require revenue solutions and entitlement reforms (among other things -- see Simpson -Bowles), and hopefully we all want things to improve -- though I am positive Grover Norquist and Karl Rove do not.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: indeedproceed on December 12, 2012, 04:21:13 PM
Quote
Now, what do we mean by full employment at decent jobs? Full employment, in my view, a realistic definition is below 4 percent as officially measured by the government. And why is that my threshold? Why below 4 percent? Because what we've seen in the 1960s when we got below 4 percent, and again in the late 1990s when we got below 4 percent, you see a decisive change in the labor market dynamics, such that workers' wages go up pretty significantly, even in the late 1990s.
This is a quick google result: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10918-bob-pollin-the-full-employment-debate

IANAE - so I don't know the full math version.

I think Full Employment isn't the rock-solid ideal you implied it is.

I did do a google search, and he's what Wikipedia had to say about it:

Quote
Whatever the definition of full employment, it is difficult to discover exactly what unemployment rate it corresponds to. In the United States, for example, the economy saw stable inflation despite low unemployment during the late 1990s, contradicting most economists' estimates of the NAIRU.

The idea that the full-employment unemployment rate (NAIRU) is not a unique number has been seen in recent empirical research. Staiger, Stock, and Watson found that the range of possible values of the NAIRU (from 4.3 to 7.3% unemployment) was too large to be useful to macroeconomic policy-makers. Robert Eisner suggested that for 1956-95 there was a zone from about 5% to about 10% unemployment between the low-unemployment realm of accelerating inflation and the high-unemployment realm of disinflation. In between, he found that inflation falls with falling unemployment.

Worse, the NAIRU doesn't stay the same over time—and can change due to economic policy. For example, some economists argue that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's anti-inflation policies using persistently high unemployment led to higher structural unemployment and a higher NAIRU.

So to bring this puppy all the way around to center, again we don't know what numbers Heritage used for 'Full Employment', and their 'calculations' are pretty suspect considering their political leanings.

EDIT: And to counterpoint my counterpoint, I'm basing this on the loosest of understandings regarding economics, so if I've got it all wrong, apologies.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 09:44:01 PM
Yes - I agree. As a concept its understood, but hard to put an exact number on it. I'm guessing they used a number around 4. I know much lower is considered a bad sign (inflationary, not enough elasticity.)

Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 12, 2012, 10:28:09 PM
Some of these guys griping like Papa John's are just cheapskates who don't want to pay for benefits.

In coal country, demand has been down because of natural gas but they timed the layoffs as always right before Christmas and after the election.   I think they would have happened either way.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 12, 2012, 10:31:42 PM
Some of these guys griping like Papa John's are just cheapskates who don't want to pay for benefits.

In coal country, demand has been down because of natural gas but they timed the layoffs as always right before Christmas and after the election.   I think they would have happened either way.
Yes and when you have a huge new requirement to pay benefits that the labor value doesn't justify - you get "cheapskates" laying people off or using more part time help.

This is a good lesson for big gov't people: your best laid plans have many unexpected outcomes.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Celtics4ever on December 12, 2012, 10:48:07 PM
I'd pay the extra .12 cents a pizza so someone has health insurance.
Title: Re: Layoff announcements since election
Post by: Brendan on December 14, 2012, 12:44:05 PM
I'd pay the extra .12 cents a pizza so someone has health insurance.
If you owned the giant pizza place this might matter.

Or if you eat like a 100k of pizza a year.