Now we know what happen to the jobs

Now we know what happen to the jobs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nosathro -> Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 8:02:12 AM)
If anyone has wondered what happen to the jobs and why are companies still laying off the following may shock you. According to a new report by the Insitute of Policy Study CEO of companies are receiving even larger bonuses for firing employees and are keeping the money for themselves. If one looks at the 50 companies in study, many are the ones who cried they were broke and got money from the government, and their top excutives continued to get million dollar bonuses, now it seems they are getting more millions for firing and not hiring. A quote from one of the person who conducted the study Our findings illustrate the great unfairness of the Great Recession," says Sarah Anderson, lead author on the Institute study. "CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks." http://www.ips-dc.org/ Nosathro

Fellow -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 9:40:57 AM)
What you describe is a natural business activity. You fail to mention that the productivity of these businesses increased (the production did not decrease in proportion to layoffs). The last is why CEO-s got rewarded. The problem is low demand. Businesses will start to hire as soon as the extra demand for products arrives. I do not see it happening soon. Infrastructure projects would create demand, so would policies directed to bring jobs back from China and other places..

AlwaysLisa -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 10:01:09 AM)
quote: Infrastructure projects would create demand, so would policies directed to bring jobs back from China and other places.. Here, here. I would have thought that with the current situation, outsourcing jobs should have been halted. I understand why companies outsource, it's nothing but economics, but I also think the US should benefit from any job held by a US based firm and that position is filled by a non US resident. Amazon, ATT, Microsoft, CitiBank, are just a few that hire outside of the US for call center positions. They pay ridiculously low wages, with no benefits to the workers and continue to have established companies in the US. If they want to save bucks by hiring from other countries, fine, it's their right...but I feel they should not be allowed to have corporate offices in the US, or they should have to pay large import/export fees. Lets start bringing jobs back to this country. courtsies

lobodomslavery -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 10:21:27 AM)
The bankers are just totally and utterly incompetent . They should all be fired kevin

Archer -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 12:20:10 PM)
Actually India Call Centers pay a very good wage (when compared to the local cost of living) it puts the Call Center worker right in the middle class of India. In fact compared to the rates that US call centers pay the standard of living compared to the national norm would be higher for those working in India than for those working in the US. In fact a recent Financial Times article tells us that India is starting to off shore their call center jobs back to the US, because Indians qualified for the jobs because they had degrees are now finding better jobs and they have had to raise the wages offered in India to the point where the US can compete. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0f6d8f76-aa29-11df-9367-00144feabdc0.html

lobodomslavery -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 12:24:25 PM)
Are we talking about India? Did i mention India in my post? No im talking about the BANKS who through their GREED have BANJAXED our economies SUCCESSFULLY kevin

Moonhead -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 1:10:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Actually India Call Centers pay a very good wage (when compared to the local cost of living) it puts the Call Center worker right in the middle class of India. In fact compared to the rates that US call centers pay the standard of living compared to the national norm would be higher for those working in India than for those working in the US. In fact a recent Financial Times article tells us that India is starting to off shore their call center jobs back to the US, because Indians qualified for the jobs because they had degrees are now finding better jobs and they have had to raise the wages offered in India to the point where the US can compete. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0f6d8f76-aa29-11df-9367-00144feabdc0.html The fact that they can get a graduate in India for less money than they'd pay for some quasi literate mouthbreather in the 'States helps a bit with that, of course: they could afford to raise the pay rate there quite a bit without cutting into their savings too heavily.

popeye1250 -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 1:29:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow What you describe is a natural business activity. You fail to mention that the productivity of these businesses increased (the production did not decrease in proportion to layoffs). The last is why CEO-s got rewarded. The problem is low demand. Businesses will start to hire as soon as the extra demand for products arrives. I do not see it happening soon. Infrastructure projects would create demand, so would policies directed to bring jobs back from China and other places.. And we'll continue to have "low demand" until we get good-paying manufacturing jobs back into the country and get out of those "outsourcing" deals disguised or labeled as "free trade.". Working people should be making $30-$40 per hour by now instead many people are making $15 an hour which these days is at "subsistance level." People who make $15 an hour don't buy new cars, houses, furniture, appliances or much of anything else. In addition those people at the economic bottom must compete with millions of illegal aliens and "right to work" laws cheapening their labor further. I agree, this isn't a short term problem. I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" We need to hold Washington's feet to the fire on that and get rid of Nafta! Nafta is nothing less than a disaster for the working and middle classes! How are "The People" supposed to "start spending again" if they don't have any money? And they call this "The new normal?" Our government is supposed to "serve" The People not try to screw us over. If you work for a living and you vote "Democratic" you're cutting your own throat.

Moonhead -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 1:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" Your avatar's old man signed NAFTA into law. It just didn't gear up enough to leave anybody holding the shitty end of the stick until Clinton had taken power.

Archer -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 1:48:53 PM)
You can't inflate wages and have any chance of not inflating prices of goods and services. A ditch digger and a Doctor will always adjust in pay according to a formula based on how much the society values each of their work. If you raise the bottom from $15 to $50 it won't matter because the prices and wages of other jobs will rise also to return things to equalibrium that existed before. If you raise minimum wage to $50, $50 will end up being the new subsistence wage. because we all compare our work's value compared to other people's work value. "I'm worth more than a Fry Cook but less than a Surgeon, More than a truck driver but less than a VP of sales at a fortune 500 company." Many times we like to claim that our work is more important than it really is. But if I can train the right tackle from Podunk County Nebraska's football team to do the job you hold, you better make sure you do the job better and or be working a plan to get a better job.

popeye1250 -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:02:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" Your avatar's old man signed NAFTA into law. It just didn't gear up enough to leave anybody holding the shitty end of the stick until Clinton had taken power. Moonbat, Bill Clinton pushed it through a lame-duck congress in 1994. So, you're saying that Bill Clinton willingly grabbed a shitty stick from Bush 41? lol Clinton was the one who pushed for it and got it passed. You know, I don't discuss British politics because I'm no good at it. You wearn't even "close" on that one.

pogo4pres -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:21:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" Your avatar's old man signed NAFTA into law. It just didn't gear up enough to leave anybody holding the shitty end of the stick until Clinton had taken power. Moonbat, Bill Clinton pushed it through a lame-duck congress in 1994. So, you're saying that Bill Clinton willingly grabbed a shitty stick from Bush 41? lol Clinton was the one who pushed for it and got it passed. You know, I don't discuss British politics because I'm no good at it. You wearn't even "close" on that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT, Wrong answer Hans, care to play double Jeopardy, where the socres can really change!!! Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch. Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada. The law TOOK EFFECT : 1 Jan 1994, but was finalized prior to his taking office, so try again poopeye. Historically, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Lucylastic -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:31:07 PM)
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch. Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada

mnottertail -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:33:40 PM)
The jobs lost to canada and mexico? weren't folks bitching about all the illegal mexicans working in this country? whats up with that?

Lucylastic -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:35:47 PM)
snorts at Pogo PMTA(perverts minds think alike)

flcouple2009 -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" Your avatar's old man signed NAFTA into law. It just didn't gear up enough to leave anybody holding the shitty end of the stick until Clinton had taken power. Moonbat, Bill Clinton pushed it through a lame-duck congress in 1994. So, you're saying that Bill Clinton willingly grabbed a shitty stick from Bush 41? lol Clinton was the one who pushed for it and got it passed. You know, I don't discuss British politics because I'm no good at it. You wearn't even "close" on that one. By that thought you shouldn't be discussing American politics either.

Lucylastic -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:40:20 PM)
Listening to right wing radio/news givesyou a flaccid brain, obviously

popeye1250 -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:44:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" Your avatar's old man signed NAFTA into law. It just didn't gear up enough to leave anybody holding the shitty end of the stick until Clinton had taken power. Moonbat, Bill Clinton pushed it through a lame-duck congress in 1994. So, you're saying that Bill Clinton willingly grabbed a shitty stick from Bush 41? lol Clinton was the one who pushed for it and got it passed. You know, I don't discuss British politics because I'm no good at it. You wearn't even "close" on that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT, Wrong answer Hans, care to play double Jeopardy, where the socres can really change!!! Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch. Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada. The law TOOK EFFECT : 1 Jan 1994, but was finalized prior to his taking office, so try again poopeye. Historically, Some Knucklehead in NJ Who was president and signed the bill and pushed it through the congress? Was it A.) G.W.H. Bush or B.) Bill Clinton? And who promised us "less illegal aliens from Mexico and millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs?" A.) G.W.H. Bush or B.) Bill Clinton?

luckydawg -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:47:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pogo4pres quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I wish someone would start asking Obama and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, where are all those "millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs we were promised if NAFTA were passed?" Your avatar's old man signed NAFTA into law. It just didn't gear up enough to leave anybody holding the shitty end of the stick until Clinton had taken power. Moonbat, Bill Clinton pushed it through a lame-duck congress in 1994. So, you're saying that Bill Clinton willingly grabbed a shitty stick from Bush 41? lol Clinton was the one who pushed for it and got it passed. You know, I don't discuss British politics because I'm no good at it. You wearn't even "close" on that one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT, Wrong answer Hans, care to play double Jeopardy, where the socres can really change!!! Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch. Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada. The law TOOK EFFECT : 1 Jan 1994, but was finalized prior to his taking office, so try again poopeye. Historically, Some Knucklehead in NJ I put the part that is incorrect according to your link in bold. And nice job with the "Poopeye" jab. It is far more insulting (to Yourself) to show everyone that you didn't even read your own link. "Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. " Which directly contradicts your claim. But we all know that Clinton was a strong supporter and campaigned for election with the intent to pass it. Bush was also a supporter. Perot was opposed to it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Now we know what happen to the jobs (9/8/2010 2:50:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer You can't inflate wages and have any chance of not inflating prices of goods and services. A ditch digger and a Doctor will always adjust in pay according to a formula based on how much the society values each of their work. If you raise the bottom from $15 to $50 it won't matter because the prices and wages of other jobs will rise also to return things to equalibrium that existed before. If you raise minimum wage to $50, $50 will end up being the new subsistence wage. because we all compare our work's value compared to other people's work value. "I'm worth more than a Fry Cook but less than a Surgeon, More than a truck driver but less than a VP of sales at a fortune 500 company." Many times we like to claim that our work is more important than it really is. But if I can train the right tackle from Podunk County Nebraska's football team to do the job you hold, you better make sure you do the job better and or be working a plan to get a better job. Yeah but think how much tax revenues will rise when EVERYONE makes more than 250k a year!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125