US unemployment rose to 9.2 percent as hiring stalls

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer


WASHINGTON – Hiring slowed to a near-standstill last month. Employers added the fewest jobs in nine months and the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent.

The economy generated only 18,000 net jobs in June, the Labor Department said Friday. And the number of jobs added in May was revised down to 25,000.

The latest report offered stark evidence that the recovery will be painfully slow. It also raised doubts that the economy will rebound in the second half of the year after hitting a spring slump.

Businesses added just 57,000 jobs last month_ the fewest in more than a year. Governments cut 39,000 jobs. Over the past eight months, federal, state and local governments have cut a combined 238,000 positions.

Stock futures plunged after the report's release.

"June's employment report doesn't have a single redeeming feature," said Paul Ashworth, an economist at Capital Economics. "It's awful from start to finish."

Two years after the recession officially ended, companies are adding fewer workers despite record cash stockpiles and healthy profit margins.

Companies have pulled back on hiring after adding an average of 215,000 jobs per month from February through April. The economy typically needs to add 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate.

Economists have said that temporary factors have, in part, forced some employers to hold back on adding workers. High gas prices have cut into consumer spending. And supply-chain disruptions stemming from the Japan crisis have slowed U.S. manufacturing production.

In June, hiring was weak in most sectors: Manufacturers added only 6,000 jobs; Education and health care, which added jobs through the recession, was flat; and professional and business services, which include accounting, legal and engineering jobs, grew by only 12,000.

Construction and financial services cut jobs.

The weak economy and slow hiring is causing more people to simply give up looking for work. More than a quarter-million people stopped their job searches in June. That kept the unemployment rate from rising even further. When laid-off workers stop looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed.

Including discouraged workers and those working part time, but who would prefer full-time work, the "under-employment" rate jumped from 15.8 percent to 16.2 percent.

Unemployment has topped 8 percent for 29 months, the longest streak since the 1930s. It has never been so high so long after a recession ended. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.

And those who do have jobs are earning less. Average hourly wages declined last month. After-tax incomes, adjusted for inflation, have been flat this year.

The average work week declined to 34.3 hours, from 34.4, which means employers demanded less work from their existing staffs. Usually companies demand more hours from their existing staffs when they are preparing to hire more workers.

Temporary employment fell 12,000. Businesses generally hire more temporary workers before taking on permanent ones.

The number of unemployed workers rose almost 175,000 to 14.1 million, pushing up the unemployment rate.

There are signs that economy could improve in the second half of the year. Gas prices have come down since peaking in early May at a national average of nearly $4 per gallon. Prices averaged $3.59 a gallon nationwide on Friday, according to AAA.

And manufacturing activity expanded in June at a faster pace than the previous month, according to the Institute for Supply Management. That suggests the parts shortage caused by the March 11 earthquake in Japan is beginning to abate.

More jobs are needed to boost incomes and consumer spending, which fuels 70 percent of the economy. Without more hiring, the economy may not be able to accelerate from its current weak pace of growth.

The government said last month that the economy grew only 1.9 percent in the January-March quarter. Analysts are expecting similarly weak growth in April-June quarter.

The economy is expected to grow at a 3.2 percent pace in final six months of the year, according to an Associated Press survey of 38 economists. But the latest report could prompt some economists to revise their forecasts.

Growth must be stronger to significantly lower the unemployment rate. The economy would need to grow 5 percent for a whole year to significantly bring down the unemployment rate. Economic growth of just 3 percent a year would hold the unemployment steady and keep up with population growth.

[Loser]

When laid-off workers stop looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed.



Why? Because politicians like to keep numbers low. The actual unemployment rate is almost 17%

[Acid Trip]

From another article on the same topic they hid the following sentence near the bottom:

"The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported."

[AntZ]

Drudge posted a flashback video of Pelosi talking out her ass as usual! :lol:

________________________________________


Pelosi: Health Reform Will Create 400,000 Jobs "Almost Immediately"

February 25, 2010

Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almos t_immediately.html


Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the health summit: "It's about jobs. In it's life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately."

[Muddy]

I think the unemployment rate in Virginia is really low..

[Loser]

Where I live its near 20%.

[Deepsepia]

Drudge posted a flashback video of Pelosi talking out her ass as usual! :lol:

________________________________________


Pelosi: Health Reform Will Create 400,000 Jobs "Almost Immediately"

February 25, 2010

Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almos t_immediately.html


Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the health summit: "It's about jobs. In it's life, it [the health bill] will create 4 million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately."

No, just Drudge slurring the Dems, without taking the trouble to ascertain the facts, as usual:



n all industries, the unemployment rate didn't change much from May to June, remaining steady at 9.2 percent (14.1 million), according to the BLS. In healthcare, however, employment trended up in the month of June with the addition of about 14,000 jobs.

In the overall healthcare industry, which includes ambulatory services, hospitals, nursing homes, and social assistance, employment rose (seasonally adjusted) to 14,057,100 jobs in June, up from 14,043,600 in May, according to BLS data.

During the past 12 months, the healthcare industry has added an average 24,000 jobs per month, according to the report.

http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/overall-healthcare-employment-hospital-employment-down/2011-07-08

[Acid Trip]

No, just Drudge slurring the Dems, without taking the trouble to ascertain the facts, as usual:

24,000 x 12 = 288,000. That's 112,000 short of the 400,000 she claimed. I also don't think you'll find many people who say a year is "almost immediately" in regards to time.

Now for proof Pelosi is full of shit.

The healthcare field was adding about 19k jobs per month BEFORE the bill was passed (2009 recession numbers). Projections said it would add approx 25-26k per month for the next 10 years (starting in 2008 thru 2018 according to the Dept of Labor). So estimates said it should be growing faster than it is now despite the added bonus of the healthcare bill. Hummm....Nancy said 4 million jobs would be added but we were ALREADY at that rate BEFORE the bill.

Essentially she tricked anyone who believed it would add 4 million jobs (or 400,000 immediately) because the field was already growing at that rate to begin with!

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/10/02/still-going-health-care-job-growth-continues/

http://echilontel.com/2011/06/26/2011-job-growth-showing-in-health-care-jobs-section/

[Deepsepia]

24,000 x 12 = 288,000. That's 112,000 short of the 400,000 she claimed. I also don't think you'll find many people who say a year is "almost immediately" in regards to time.

If you roll back the stats to February 2010, when she made that statement, you'll find that in fact we've gained 700,000 jobs in healthcare since then. In fact, we're 300,000 jobs above the 400,000 number she cited.

The question of what "almost immediately" would mean would depend on when the legislation actually took effect, and in the case of the Healthcare Reform law, different provisions come into force at different times-- many have yet to take effect.

For example, the healthcare insurance exchanges don't come into effect until 2014, and a number of States are litigating to prevent them coming into force; they clearly can't employ anyone in a healthcare exchange if it doesn't exist.

The bottom line is that since Pelosi made that statement, we're up 700,000 jobs in healthcare, and basically flat or down in most other sectors.

Her statement is far more accurate than Drudge's . . . healthcare is the one sector reliably adding jobs.

[AntZ]

No, just Drudge slurring the Dems, without taking the trouble to ascertain the facts, as usual:

NO! You're are absolutely wrong!!

Did you actually check the link he posted? It was to Real Clear Politics, and they posted a clip of her saying the words! So what part do you not understand? You think Drudge made it up? Or they faked the video?

As usual you tailored your facts posted here, why didn't you add this line from that same article?


Although the largest gain was in ambulatory healthcare at 6,133,200 in June, up from 6,116,700 the previous month, hospitals did not witness the same kind of growth. Hospital employment was 4,738,000 in June, down from 4,742,000 in May.


:rolleyes:

[Deepsepia]

NO! You're are absolutely wrong!!


Nope. I am correct, and Drudge is wrong.




Did you actually check the link he posted? It was to Real Clear Politics, and they posted a clip of her saying the words! So what part do you not understand? You think Drudge made it up? Or they faked the video?


And, in fact, in the 15 months since she said that, employment in broad healthcare (BLS Series CES6562000001 ) is up by 500,000 jobs. What part of that don't you understand? 500,000 is more than 400,000, right?




As usual you tailored your facts posted here, why didn't you add this line from that same article?
:

Because the question is "healthcare employment" -- not "hospital employment". "Healthcare employment" includes folks working at hospitals, but also folks working in doctors' offices, outpatient centers, pharmacists, nursing homes, etc.

There's a trend throughout the healthcare system to move procedures from "inpatient" to "outpatient" -- because it costs far less.

So fewer people are employed at hospitals (though hospital employment has actually increased slightly since 2010-- its just not growing much, but it isn't likely to decline much), and many more people are employed in outpatient settings. If you're trying to assess "healthcare employment", why do you care if a nurse is employed at a hospital, or at an outpatient surgical center? You don't. In fact, from an efficiency and cost standpoint, hospital based care is by far the most expensive way of delivering healthcare service.

Again, I start with facts. You start with opinions, and become angry when the facts don't match them. My advice would be that you'll be less angry, and less often wrong, if you start out saying "what are the facts, let me go find them" instead of "I don't need to look up a number, I already know everything". Really, the way knowledge works is that you start out knowing nothing, and you have to do some work if you want to know something. If you don't trouble yourself to do the work, you'll find that you're usually wrong.

http://picload.org/image/lidgpg/firefoxscreensna.jpg

[AntZ]

Nope. I am correct, and Drudge is wrong.





That is the very thing that makes you so foolish! You are accusing Drudge of something that he didn't do, even after having it pointed out, your ego, arrogance, or both prevent you from correcting your statement. That's what I say all the time about intellectual honesty, it's impossible for you to ever acknowledge that you missed the mark. Yet, you take joy in accusing EVERYONE of being wrong when they are or not. Why do you even bother?

Your link pointed out that gains were made ambulatory healthcare while there are drops in hospital staffs. The lack of personnel and funding at emergency rooms around the country has been a huge concern for years. Everyone has heard and seen people in emergency hallways waiting and or dying, and this care scheme was going to drive out doctors from hospitals, it's been reported that it has begun.

Interesting that the article you used sources the Obama Administration, the same Administration that has been fudging all types of numbers concerning the economy and health care!


To learn more:
- read the BLS press release
- here's the BLS data
- check out the White House blog

[Deepsepia]

Your link pointed out that gains were made ambulatory healthcare while there are drops in hospital staffs.

. . . and both are included in the overall healthcare number, which showed an increase

for that one month, a small drop, yes, about 4,000 people out of 4.7 million employed in hospitals. That's 1/10 of one percent of hospital employment, not statistically meaningful. Hospital based employment is actually up since 2010. Again, this is something which you could know -- if you take the trouble to look at data before you decide what you think. Because you start out with your conclusions first, you don't know what to do with data except to raise objections. My advice: you're doing it the wrong way round. Start with the data, then form your opinion after you've understood it.

http://picload.org/image/lidrlg/firefoxscreensna.jpg


That is the very thing that makes you so foolish! You are accusing Drudge of something that he didn't do, even after having it pointed out, your ego, arrogance, or both prevent you from correcting your statement. That's what I say all the time about intellectual honesty, it's impossible for you to ever acknowledge that you missed the mark. Yet, you take joy in accusing EVERYONE of being wrong when they are or not. Why do you even bother?

Because you're wrong. You post a Drudge link, and claim that Nancy Pelosi is "talking out her ass as usual!"

And in fact, while she claimed that the health bill would create 400,000 jobs . . . in fact since it was signed, 500,000 jobs have been created -- these are 500,000 jobs more than existed when she spoke. So remind me on the math -- is 500,000 more than 400,000? Seems to me that it is.

So she's right, and you and Drudge are wrong.

Really: If you want to be wrong less often, start by trying to understand the data.

You should know something before you form an opinion. Works better that way.

When I haven't seen data, I have no opinion, nor should I. Nor should you or anyone else. What you don't know, you don't know-- that should be obvious.



Interesting that the article you used sources the Obama Administration, the same Administration that has been fudging all types of numbers concerning the economy and health care!

Same sources used by everyone. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is the only source of data for national healthcare employment. I have heard no accusation that the BLS have "fudged" any aspect of employment data. Can you substantiate that accusation? Do you have some alternative source of employment data that you prefer? What is it? Stuff you make up?

The quarrel people have with the BLS is in the unemployment data, where there are multiple series, and some workers are included in some series and not in others. I have never seen any quarrel with employment data-- because these are real people in real jobs, paying payroll taxes and so on. There's no "judgment call" about whether a person who is working, is working-- whereas there is a judgment call about whether an unemployed person is "actively seeking" a job.

If you want to actually know something about how the BLS calculates unemployment statistics, and how the various series compare with the data reported by other countries, you can find an exhaustive description here:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/unemployment.htm#how_is_unemployment_measured

The BLS actually reports 6 different "unemployment" series, with different definitions . . . but again, the key thing is that you'd have to actually know something about them to meaningfully discuss the differences between them

[Southern Belle]

Maybe I need to get into the healthcare industry.

[FBD]

:rofl:

[deebakes]

if you're willing to work, you can find a job and not be unemployed imo...

[Acid Trip]

Again, the number of jobs in the healthcare field was already growing at/beyond the number Pelosi quoted. She took a known statistic "Healthcare will gain 4 million jobs over 10 years" and turned it into "the healthcare bill will create 4 million jobs over the next 10 years".

[Softdreamer]

There is an interesting bit in the new zeitgeist movie (moving forward) about un-employment.. points out that the competitive market leads to jobs only being created in the service industry, something that is eventually self defeating as in the end nobody can afford these services.

Just thought Id throw this in here for everyone to criticize and attack. :rolleyes:

#retreats safe distance from Deeps after lighting blue touch paper#

[Teh One Who Knocks]

if you're willing to work, you can find a job and not be unemployed imo...

:+1:

[Loser]

if you're willing to work, you can find a job and not be unemployed imo...

Not where I live :meh:

Outside of corn detasseling, which is 2-3 weeks of work, there is nothing for 20 miles in any direction.

[FBD]

competitive market leads to jobs only being created in the service industry, something that is eventually self defeating as in the end nobody can afford these services.

:lol: I think you got that ass backwards man

[Arkady Renko]

if you're willing to work, you can find a job and not be unemployed imo...

if you're able and willing to move around the country. And maybe work below your level of qualification at least for a while. I suppose that's where a lot of people will tell themselves that they can't find work while they actually could if they lowered their expectations.

[Deepsepia]

There is an interesting bit in the new zeitgeist movie (moving forward) about un-employment.. points out that the competitive market leads to jobs only being created in the service industry, something that is eventually self defeating as in the end nobody can afford these services.

Just thought Id throw this in here for everyone to criticize and attack. :rolleyes:

#retreats safe distance from Deeps after lighting blue touch paper#

Um . . . I won't go ballistic on it, but I'll point out that in an "advanced industrial" economy, you should have more services and less manufacturing. If you look at construction today, vs construction one hundred years ago, there's much more of a "services" component relative to construction.

Basically, you put in more effort in design relative to construction. As an example, think of bombers . . . in WW II, we had to build enormous factories to with huge lines to produce thousands of aircraft to drop 1000 tons of bombs. Today, we can drop that same weight of explosives with a dozen aircraft, but those dozen aircraft are the result of a much, much more laborious design process, a design process that is much more "services" than it is manufacturing.

The part about the current economy that's "self-defeating" isn't so much manufacturing vs services, its the top-heavy income distribution. When a few people have all the money, you end up with a consumption deficit. How many pairs of shoes does Bill Gates want? Does he need another house? If he bought another car, would we be richer?

Put another way: I know more than one person who's had trouble holding a job because they don't have a reliable car. That person, when they purchase a new reliable car, add far more to the wealth of the nation than when a Wall Street guy buys a new Porsche with his bonus.

Just as excessive income equality has inefficiencies, massive inequality is very inefficient, and makes us poorer than we'd be.

[Softdreamer]

When you have a couple of hours free.. check out "Zeitgeist:moving forward", Im not getting into their idea of utopia, nor their perfect city idea. But when it comes to most of the conclusions about the modern world they are spot on.

I especially liked their interpretations of the correlations against GDP.. Watch and you will get my meaning.

[FBD]

:lol: there ya go deep, what's killing the economy is all those highly paid people. :lol: I'm afraid I can comment no further otherwise I'd probably get banned for an honest assessment of that putrefaction.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC5nh172Dt4

[Acid Trip]

Um . . . I won't go ballistic on it, but I'll point out that in an "advanced industrial" economy, you should have more services and less manufacturing. If you look at construction today, vs construction one hundred years ago, there's much more of a "services" component relative to construction.

Basically, you put in more effort in design relative to construction. As an example, think of bombers . . . in WW II, we had to build enormous factories to with huge lines to produce thousands of aircraft to drop 1000 tons of bombs. Today, we can drop that same weight of explosives with a dozen aircraft, but those dozen aircraft are the result of a much, much more laborious design process, a design process that is much more "services" than it is manufacturing.

The part about the current economy that's "self-defeating" isn't so much manufacturing vs services, its the top-heavy income distribution. When a few people have all the money, you end up with a consumption deficit. How many pairs of shoes does Bill Gates want? Does he need another house? If he bought another car, would we be richer?

Put another way: I know more than one person who's had trouble holding a job because they don't have a reliable car. That person, when they purchase a new reliable car, add far more to the wealth of the nation than when a Wall Street guy buys a new Porsche with his bonus.

Just as excessive income equality has inefficiencies, massive inequality is very inefficient, and makes us poorer than we'd be.

Deep sounds like a spokesman for wealth redistribution. Luckily there are enough common sense minded Americans to keep that from ever happening.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Thomas Jefferson

[Deepsepia]

Deep sounds like a spokesman for wealth redistribution. Luckily there are enough common sense minded Americans to keep that from ever happening.


No, I oppose wealth redistribution. What's happening in the United States is that wealth is being redistributed from the bottom %95 to the top 5/10th of one percent.

That's why the top 1/10 of one percent is so much richer, relative to everyone else, than they were before.

Ask yourself this question: Bankers are paid far more today -- relative to workers in their own banks, and relative to workers in other fields-- than they were in 1960,1970,1980, 1990 or 2000. Do you think that bankers are doing a better job today, relative to these other workers, than they did at other times? No, obviously they're not. What they've done is to "pick the pockets of the public", capturing the gains of their good bets for themselves, and handing over their losses to the public. That's "redistribution" from the poor to the rich, and that's what our system is about today.

Look at the Wall Street bailouts.

Who paid? The taxpayers

Who got the bonuses when the companies returned to profitability? The bosses.

We have a bizarre "reverse Robin Hood" system, taking from the poor to give to the rich. As Warren Buffett points out, his secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does.

Its happened because we have, today, two classes of folks in the US: those who have lobbyists to represent them, and those who don't. Guess which one of those you belong to.

All I'd like to see is a system that is neutral between the wealthy and the workers

[Muddy]

No, I oppose wealth redistribution. What's happening in the United States is that wealth is being redistributed from the bottom %95 to the top 5/10th of one percent.

Look at the Wall Street bailouts.

Who paid? The taxpayers

Who got the bonuses when the companies returned to profitability? The bosses.

We have a bizarre "reverse Robin Hood" system, taking from the poor to give to the rich. As Warren Buffett points out, his secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does.

Its happened because we have, today, two classes of folks in the US: those who have lobbyists to represent them, and those who don't. Guess which one of those you belong to.

All I'd like to see is a system that is neutral between the wealthy and the workers

BOOM !

[Southern Belle]

if you're willing to work, you can find a job and not be unemployed imo...


if you're able and willing to move around the country. And maybe work below your level of qualification at least for a while. I suppose that's where a lot of people will tell themselves that they can't find work while they actually could if they lowered their expectations.
I've done and am doing both. I took a cut in pay to get a steady check and go out of town to work shutdowns for extra money. The problem is that neither of the jobs are anything I can really depend on and don't have a sense of security but I'm satisfied right now.

No, I oppose wealth redistribution. What's happening in the United States is that wealth is being redistributed from the bottom %95 to the top 5/10th of one percent.

That's why the top 1/10 of one percent is so much richer, relative to everyone else, than they were before.

Ask yourself this question: Bankers are paid far more today -- relative to workers in their own banks, and relative to workers in other fields-- than they were in 1960,1970,1980, 1990 or 2000. Do you think that bankers are doing a better job today, relative to these other workers, than they did at other times? No, obviously they're not. What they've done is to "pick the pockets of the public", capturing the gains of their good bets for themselves, and handing over their losses to the public. That's "redistribution" from the poor to the rich, and that's what our system is about today.

Look at the Wall Street bailouts.

Who paid? The taxpayers

Who got the bonuses when the companies returned to profitability? The bosses.

We have a bizarre "reverse Robin Hood" system, taking from the poor to give to the rich. As Warren Buffett points out, his secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does.

Its happened because we have, today, two classes of folks in the US: those who have lobbyists to represent them, and those who don't. Guess which one of those you belong to.

All I'd like to see is a system that is neutral between the wealthy and the workers

EXACTLY!
Our representative vote themselves pay raises we can't afford, passed a health care bill that doesn't apply to them, have perks that we pay for that we could never imagine enjoying. What's wrong with this picture? "Reverse Robin Hood" is a good term Deeps.

[Deepsepia]

I've done and am doing both. I took a cut in pay to get a steady check and go out of town to work shutdowns for extra money. The problem is that neither of the jobs are anything I can really depend on and don't have a sense of security but I'm satisfied right now.


That's actually the reason that the US will make it through this. Our folks are willing to make wrenching changes in their lives -- its one of the characteristics of our workforce. It would just be nice if the system recognized that, and if more fortunate folks felt some need to make a sacrifice too.




EXACTLY!
Our representative vote themselves pay raises we can't afford, passed a health care bill that doesn't apply to them, have perks that we pay for that we could never imagine enjoying. What's wrong with this picture? "Reverse Robin Hood" is a good term Deeps.

I wish there were something surprising or original about the observation-- unfortunately its so much "par for the course" that I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before. People with wealth and power use those tools to make the system deliver them more goodies. Always have done, always will do . . . its what you should expect.

(if you google "reverse Robin Hood" you can see that its a popular description . . . I dunno who first said it, but it definitely wasn't me . . .)

[deebakes]

if you're able and willing to move around the country. And maybe work below your level of qualification at least for a while. I suppose that's where a lot of people will tell themselves that they can't find work while they actually could if they lowered their expectations.

that's what i'm thinking...

[KevinD]

I personally have never had any problems finding work. Was it always what I wanted to do? Not at all. I do understand that sometimes it can be hard to find work.
I remember once a girl I was dating while she was in college, and I was in the service, changed her major, and couldn't find work related to it. I asked her what she wanted to do. She told me, and said she had put in applications all around the town in those fields. I got tired of hearing her complain about it so got out the phone book (pre internet days, lol) called the first company I found, asked to speak to the manager, and asked were they looking for any help. He said no. I asked did he know anyone in the field that needed any help, and he gave me the number of one of his competitors. My girlfriend had a job the next day. This was in a fair sized city. I really understand the lack of opportunities in the rural areas, been there, done that.

[Softdreamer]

:lol: there ya go deep, what's killing the economy is all those highly paid people. :lol: I'm afraid I can comment no further otherwise I'd probably get banned for an honest assessment of that putrefaction.


Nice of you to actually do some research and watch what I was suggesting.
Instead, just carry on as you were, ignoring anything else you disagree with.

YES the highly paid people ARE destroying the economy, money in is very nature devalues when used or owned.
Pointless trying to discuss anything with you if you are not going to listen though.

As Deeps puts it, this modern day "Robin Hood reversal" is whats destroying the global economy, as its the majority that actually contribute to the repayment of any national debt, as the poor get poorer, you have less chance of that debt ever being repaid.

[KevinD]

I am not a fan of the whole "global economy". I'm realistic enough to know that it's never going to go away, all of our countries depend entirely too much on each other now. I wouldn't consider myself an isolationist, but there has to be some middle ground.

[Acid Trip]

No, I oppose wealth redistribution. What's happening in the United States is that wealth is being redistributed from the bottom %95 to the top 5/10th of one percent.

That's why the top 1/10 of one percent is so much richer, relative to everyone else, than they were before.

Ask yourself this question: Bankers are paid far more today -- relative to workers in their own banks, and relative to workers in other fields-- than they were in 1960,1970,1980, 1990 or 2000. Do you think that bankers are doing a better job today, relative to these other workers, than they did at other times? No, obviously they're not. What they've done is to "pick the pockets of the public", capturing the gains of their good bets for themselves, and handing over their losses to the public. That's "redistribution" from the poor to the rich, and that's what our system is about today.

Look at the Wall Street bailouts.

Who paid? The taxpayers

Who got the bonuses when the companies returned to profitability? The bosses.

We have a bizarre "reverse Robin Hood" system, taking from the poor to give to the rich. As Warren Buffett points out, his secretary pays a higher marginal tax rate than he does.

Its happened because we have, today, two classes of folks in the US: those who have lobbyists to represent them, and those who don't. Guess which one of those you belong to.

All I'd like to see is a system that is neutral between the wealthy and the workers

It was our elected officials who decided to socialize the losses despite the profits being private. Capitalism is great, the crony capitalism we have now is a powder keg waiting to explode.

[KevinD]

It was our elected officials who decided to socialize the losses despite the profits being private. Capitalism is great, the crony capitalism we have now is a powder keg waiting to explode.

Yeah verily I say unto thee!

[FBD]

:lol: yeah, some people just dont differentiate between a free market and crony capitalism.

who am I to dictate what the market says? if companies far and wide have been drawing higher paying salaries for their top officials, it must be for a reason. you have some talent, you pay that talent to keep it.

but obviously there's something WRONG with that. :lol:

it must be a conspiracy across the entire market to pay peeons less and less and simply to raise top salaries for absolutely no reason. oh wait, we need to steal from the poor. :roll:

fkn listen to yourselves :lol:

[Deepsepia]

:lol: yeah, some people just dont differentiate between a free market and crony capitalism.

who am I to dictate what the market says? if companies far and wide have been drawing higher paying salaries for their top officials, it must be for a reason. you have some talent, you pay that talent to keep it.

Really, more talent?

Are bankers "more talented" today than they were previously, relative to employees of other industries?

I don't recall the United States banking industry previously becoming insolvent -- not since 1930-33, anyway.

The "talent" that the guys at the top have is for extracting dollars for themselves from the public.

If it were "talent"-- then you'd find CEO's being recruited away, for more money, by other banks -- never happens. What instead you have are guys who sit on top of a legislatively established commanding heights of the economy, and extract a toll from the nation's commerce.

Its "redistribution" from the folks who can't buy votes to the folks who can.

Don't mistake "crony capitalism" for a "free market".

This market is anything but free . . . put another way, when you can't pay your bills, can you call up the Federal Reserve and arrange a secret loan to bail you out?

[FBD]

hmmm....now how can I change the context and obfuscate?

oh wait, you already got that taken care of for me. :razz:

[Acid Trip]

The "talent" that the guys at the top have is for extracting dollars for themselves from the public.

Please explain how the guys on top are extracting dollars from an unwilling public.

Last time I checked banks make loans off deposits. If you have a savings/checking/money market/IRA/etc in a major bank you are giving them deposits to use for loans. If you don't like how the big banks are acting then close your accounts and take your money somewhere else. If all BofA customers closed their accounts then BofA would go under, it's as simple as that.

If a bank wants to pay their talent top dollar and you don't agree then don't bank with them and don't buy their stock! The public is, and always will be, a large part of the problem. Don't complain about bank bailouts and then charge $2000 to your BofA credit card. Don't crucify Goldman when you have them managing your investment account. Don't complain about Citi if you are a shareholder.

Banks have gotten carried away but they couldn't have done it without the general public going along with it.

[FBD]

and barney frank threatening to haul their asses in if they're not lending to sufficiently unqualified people :lol:

[Deepsepia]

Please explain how the guys on top are extracting dollars from an unwilling public.

Last time I checked banks make loans off deposits.


You need to check again.

Traditional lending is a very small part of most banking operations now. If you look at a shop like B of A or WaMu, they were busy originating mortgages, packaging them and selling them through to Fannie Mae. They pocketed the fees from these transactions, paid themselves big bonuses, and when the transactions blew up because the underwriting was crap, who got the bill? Those managers who'd been busy writing crap loans and paying themselves huge bonuses? Nope, not so much . . .

If you want to understand what a "bank" does, you can take a look at Bank of America's report on its business segments, here:
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Bank_of_America_%28BAC%29/Filing/10-K/2011/F94458197#G25571131

Here's a sample of the kind of thing that today's "banks" do



CDO vehicles hold diversified pools of fixed-income securities and issue multiple tranches of debt securities including commercial paper, mezzanine and equity securities. Our CDO-related exposure can be divided into funded and unfunded super senior liquidity commitment exposure, other super senior exposure (i.e., cash positions and derivative contracts), warehouse, and sales and trading positions. For more information on our CDO positions, see Note 8 – Securitizations and Other Variable Interest Entities to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Super senior exposure represents the most senior class of commercial paper or notes that are issued by the CDO vehicles. These financial instruments benefit from the subordination of all other securities issued by the CDO vehicles.


Wow, sounds complicated, right? Must have lots of highly paid people running something so complicated, and it must be really profitable, right?



In 2010, we incurred $573 million of losses resulting from our CDO-related exposure compared to $2.2 billion in CDO-related losses in 2009. This included $357 million in 2010 related to counterparty risk on our CDO-related exposure compared to $910 million in 2009. Also included in these losses were other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) write-downs of $251 million in 2010 compared to losses of $1.2 billion in 2009 related to CDOs and retained positions classified as AFS debt securities.
As presented in the table below, at December 31, 2010, our hedged and unhedged super senior CDO exposure before consideration of insurance, net of write-downs, was $2.0 billion compared to $3.6 billion at December 31, 2009.


These guys piled into this alphabet soup of shitty financial products whose principal function was to pay them big fees, out of which they then paid themselves big bonuses . . . and when the whole morass blew up on them, the taxpayer got the bill for it. Depositors never had any idea of these kinds of activities.

The banking system -- the whole thing, all of them-- became insolvent in 2007-20008, and had be funded by the taxpayer.

The bankers borrow short (often overnight) and lend long. After the "Lehman weekend", there was no one willing to lend overnight to them . . . so you and I, the taxpayers, stepped in.

Let's be very clear: the big banks could not meet their obligations in the fall of 2008. That's called "being bust". If you run a company and your decisions cause it to go bust, what exactly is the "value" that you're adding to the process that's so rare that it needs to be rewarded richly?




If you have a savings/checking/money market/IRA/etc in a major bank you are giving them deposits to use for loans. If you don't like how the big banks are acting then close your accounts and take your money somewhere else. If all BofA customers closed their accounts then BofA would go under, it's as simple as that


You've got a mistaken impression that banks are funding their operations with bank deposits-- that's a piece of their capital, but only one piece. . . the largest sums come from various kinds of "overnight' borrowing from other financial institutions.

What in fact happened in 2008, was that, for example B of A was unable to fund themselves. That wasn't the result of bank depositors withdrawing their funds, it was the result of major lenders -- folks like money market funds-- being unwilling to accept B of A as a counterparty (eg, they wouldn't lend money to them, not even overnight).

This disaster was engineered by the managers of the financial system, and its a failure of spectacular proportions.

If you compare the scale of the Great Depression, to that of "the Great Recession", what's clear is that our banks were far better run in 1929 than they were in 2007. If you'll recall, the stock market crashed in 1929, and the economy went into Recession, at first not so severe, but getting worse and worse (due in part to a bad policy response at the Federal level). But the banks were actually mostly OK in 1929, 1930, 1931 -- bank failures didn't really skyrocket until 1931/32 . . . whereas in 2007/2008, a relatively small correction in real estate prices produced effectively the insolvency of every single bank. If this system is so fragile, what exactly are the people running the major banks (and today there are only four: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, and JP Morgan) doing that's so valuable that we ought to reward them so much more richly than people in other industries?

The bankers went to the casino, bet big, when they win, pocket the winnings, when they lose, come to the taxpayer "the financial system is going to collapse unless you lend us $15 billion -- right now"

Its scandalous. its not a "free market", its a cartel of cronies.

If this were about "valuable talent" -- like say a superstar baseball player-- you'd expect to see banks hiring away each other's "talent" by paying top dollar. Never happens for banking management. You'll see that, on occasion for a super successful trader or hedge fund manager-- but a bank president? Never. This is not an "arm's length" transaction for talent, its an insider helping himself to the cookie jar, no matter how crummy his performance.

[Softdreamer]

Its scandalous. its not a "free market", its a cartel of cronies.


Agreed... and I cant see much changing.

Sure, you can introduce more regulation, but these people thrive on sidestepping regulations and staying within the law.
Id like to see a massive crash in ALL markets, most everyday people would not be affected as much as they think. We have been brainwashed into thinking that the financial sector is what drives all economies, when IMO they do the opposite.

[Acid Trip]

If you want to understand what a "bank" does

I have no mistaken impressions on banking. I'm the Senior Vice President of Operations for a regional bank here in Texas. I know more about banking than you ever will.

Let's talk about my bank shall we. How many sub prime loans did we make? Zero. How much did we have to increase our loan loss provisions during the recession? A measly 1% because we have always been conservative on who we give money to. How big is our trading arm? We don't have one. How much does our CEO make? Just under 30 times the lowest employees pay. How badly do we screw our shareholders? They get between a 3-5% dividend and we've never missed a payment.

Please explain how my bank is screwing the general public. Oh that's right, you lumped all banks together as if you knew the first thing about banking.

[KevinD]

:shock::snapout:

[FBD]

:lol: deep will simply never acknowledge the role that congressional arm twisting had on underwriting. or the overreaches and utter failures of the regulatory paradigm that led to certain streamlinings and the complete failure to pay attention to any of it by the regulators...sounds like the downstream effects of a government program, allright :thumbsup:

yup, it was simply that greedy banks wanted to turn a quick buck and write shitty mortgages and all of the execs didnt give two shits whose money it was or who they were screwing, all they could see was the big dollar sign bonuses in their eyes.

and then he's got the nerve to tell us we've got blinders on :rofl:

[Deepsepia]

:lol: deep will simply never acknowledge the role that congressional arm twisting had on underwriting.


Wrong. There's some role for Congress, but have you noticed: Ireland's got a mortgage crisis too . . . in fact, so do many nations, nations which did not have GSE's, but did have banks which behaved similarly to ours. And I'd add that in the US, there were lots of other kinds of loans which were not underwritten by the GSE's -- they've performed as badly or worse than the GSE's. Congress' role in the disaster is basically the fudge of the "implied guarantee" -- a disastrous bit of nonsense that is akin to Enron: the GSE's became "off balance sheet" obligations of the US taxpayer . . . this was a terrible decision, and one can justifiably blame Congress for it.

As to the behavior of the GSE's you manage to ignore the fact that the White House --not Congress-- had regulatory power. I've posted it many times before, and you just ignore it, because it doesn't suit you, but its still true: the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight was the body that regulated the GSE's, and it answered to the President.

This was the job of OFHEO, not of Congress



The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is issuing a final rule to set forth the procedures by which OFHEO administers the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, under which OFHEO takes prompt corrective action in response to specified declines in the capital levels of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises)
http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/1735/20020125_Final_FR.pdf



How come you continuously ignore the body whose job it was to oversee FNMA, FRM and GNMA? OFHEO had the statutory authority, the budgets and the staffs to regulate these entities . . . they were responsible, not Congress, for auditing these agencies. They were appointed by the President and answered to him, part of the Executive branch.

Yet, you continually ignore this

How come?

[Acid Trip]

Wrong. There's some role for Congress, but have you noticed: Ireland's got a mortgage crisis too . . . in fact, so do many nations, nations which did not have GSE's, but did have banks which behaved similarly to ours. And I'd add that in the US, there were lots of other kinds of loans which were not underwritten by the GSE's -- they've performed as badly or worse than the GSE's. Congress' role in the disaster is basically the fudge of the "implied guarantee" -- a disastrous bit of nonsense that is akin to Enron: the GSE's became "off balance sheet" obligations of the US taxpayer . . . this was a terrible decision, and one can justifiably blame Congress for it.

As to the behavior of the GSE's you manage to ignore the fact that the White House --not Congress-- had regulatory power. I've posted it many times before, and you just ignore it, because it doesn't suit you, but its still true: the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight was the body that regulated the GSE's, and it answered to the President.

How come you continuously ignore the body whose job it was to oversee FNMA, FRM and GNMA? OFHEO had the power, the budgets and the staffs to regulate these entities . . . they were responsible, not Congress, for auditing these agencies. They were appointed by the President and answered to him, part of the Executive branch.

Yet, you continually ignore this

How come?

You, FBD, and I are saying the same thing in totally different ways. I think we can all agree it was a total cluster fuck by all parties involved. Part of it was Congress, part of it was the Executive branch, part of it was banks, part of it was the home buyer, and last but not least the regulatory agencies.

The most amazing thing is nobody is willing to take their share of the blame. When was the last time we heard the Executive/Legislative branches admit failure? When have you seen a bank customer say "man I shouldn't have gotten that big of a loan, especially as an ARM! My mistake!"? Of course the major banks are so ingrained in government that they now act like politicians and blame everyone but themselves.

Until the groups involved accept responsibility for their actions the blame game will continue.

[FBD]

they were responsible, not Congress, for auditing these agencies. They were appointed by the President and answered to him, part of the Executive branch.

Yet, you continually ignore this

How come?

Please, do I have to pop up the video of bawney again vehemently denying any issues of solvency when flags were raised and he was called in front of congress to answer about fannie & freddie? Talked himself blue in the face saying there is no problem, in fact, we need to make more lending more easily available. The GSE issues were noted and they were successfully batted away by those who support cradle to grave state care.

I never absolved the executive branch of its responsibilities in discussion, I just never redundantly focused on it, because it wasnt the same level of failure with respect to GSEs.

So, compare Ireland...okay, no problem - did they have legislators twisting their arms to make loans that wouldnt pass underwriting muster? GSE or not, a bad loan is a bad loan, but when you have legislators basically threatening fines if lenders arent "inclusive enough" in their "standards of acceptance"....well, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to realize the result. Add in a government guarantee, the mentos in the diet coke.

[AntZ]

My advice: you're doing it the wrong way round. Start with the data, then form your opinion after you've understood it.





More arrogant bullshit! You continue to talk down to people and somehow think that you're respected around here. Why don't you live by your "advise"? Because you have a long history of being wrong and then filling posts with endless dribble trying to side step issues hoping people will forget your obvious failures. In other words, stick that "advise" up ......




Because you're wrong. You post a Drudge link, and claim that Nancy Pelosi is "talking out her ass as usual!"

And in fact, while she claimed that the health bill would create 400,000 jobs . . . in fact since it was signed, 500,000 jobs have been created -- these are 500,000 jobs more than existed when she spoke. So remind me on the math -- is 500,000 more than 400,000? Seems to me that it is.

So she's right, and you and Drudge are wrong.

Really: If you want to be wrong less often, start by trying to understand the data.

You should know something before you form an opinion. Works better that way.



First off, YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!

I NEVER POSTED A LINK TO DRUDGE! But don't let facts get in the way of you being an ass again! I posted a link to Real Clear Politics!


You should know something before you form an opinion. Works better that way.

Yeah! Because some jerk might start an argument about why the fires in Southern California are caused by "Global Warming". Then post an article by some scientist claiming that the warming is causing earlier and earlier snow melts! :lol:

Again acting like an arrogant ass, you try to portray yourself as this measured centrist thinker that respects data. But your long history of ignoring facts and spinning anything that disagrees with you into cotton.

Save your little bullshit snipes for people that don't know your true character and history. Yes, the rules here state that personal attacks are not tolerated, that includes your endless smart-ass attacks on people knowledge. That continues to prove to everyone how immature and insecure you are about yourself!


When I haven't seen data, I have no opinion, nor should I. Nor should you or anyone else. What you don't know, you don't know-- that should be obvious.

That never stops you!






If you want to actually know something about how
. . but again, the key thing is that you'd have to actually know something about them to meaningfully discuss the differences between them

People here can say what they want about a subject without some arrogant ass constantly attacking them! Most of the comments here are tongue-n-cheek, everyone has the right to speak their mind or post news stories that can generate banter. But just like at AS., you swoop in with your crap and pick fights with select people. Over at AS., there were several people that quit News and Views because of your pathetic crap, and it's starting to become the same here too!




You post and claim that Nancy Pelosi is "talking out her ass as usual!"

So what!

I can say anything about here I want! What the hell does it matter to you? That's the obnoxious part about you that you don't see, it's not your job to re-butt anyone's opinion here or anywhere else!

[FBD]

Because you're wrong. You post a Drudge link, and claim that Nancy Pelosi is "talking out her ass as usual!"

And in fact, while she claimed that the health bill would create 400,000 jobs . . . in fact since it was signed, 500,000 jobs have been created -- these are 500,000 jobs more than existed when she spoke. So remind me on the math -- is 500,000 more than 400,000? Seems to me that it is.

So she's right, and you and Drudge are wrong.

Really: If you want to be wrong less often, start by trying to understand the data.

You should know something before you form an opinion. Works better that way.
:lol: you confuse coincidence, correlation, and causation so many times it aint even funny, dude.

Are you seriously trying to say that the healthcare bill was responsible for those jobs added - ones which had been previously projected - anyway?

Can you make that one hold any more water than a cheesecloth? I'd LOVE to see that one.

[FBD]

What's your meter say about this one? :razz: Surely, its just a coincidence that hiring locked right up after we passed it so we could find out what's in it.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Heritage-Chart.jpg

[Softdreamer]

Private sector profiteering over health care DID create more jobs than true health care does. But its not sustainable.

In the long run those jobs would be the first to go when the CEO's of the private firms demand higher productivity.
The jobs under the "healthcare" umbrella is too vague for my liking. If it was solely those working in hospitals and clinics maybe i would take a second look.

[FBD]

Private sector profiteering over health care DID create more jobs than true health care does. But its not sustainable.
:lol: dude do you think profit is made a la the formula from the Underpants Gnomes??? as if one can just go park somewhere and "profiteer?"

create a business and there is an associated industry. create a job and that job gets scored under the industry. 2+2? pay the employees, pay the bills, shareholders, whomever, and then what's left over from the hard work you put in is called profit :razz:

what's unsustainable? (aside from 3rd party payer systems.)

[Softdreamer]

The red tape associated with the US health care system. you have said yourself that health care costs are high, and they are getting higher!

Health care costs should be about the treatment, not the dividends to the shareholders of the insurance companies.

[FBD]

well, if you're talking red tape - look no further than the third party payer system! it was seemingly designed to issue red tape! however, red tape has little to do with shareholders, and much to do with healthcare laws and regulations. thus this whole issue of profits from the healthcare system are a red herring, a straw man argument. the profit margin for healthcare is still relatively small - and even where its not small, its not exactly huge either.

that's why things like retail clinics are expanding nicely. you dont need insurance for every little thing, and the more privatized the whole thing gets, the more honest people have to be - because the government is simply NOT accountable. if Joe's company doesnt fill your needs, or they piss you off, Bob's company will be more than happy to take care of you.

go complain to town hall about something, see how far you get ;)

[Softdreamer]

Provided you can afford it that is..

[Acid Trip]

that's why things like retail clinics are expanding nicely. you dont need insurance for every little thing

I got the flu a few years back and went to a private clinic instead of the hospital despite having insurance. I got two IVs and a shot for my nausea. I checked in, got treated, and checked out in a little over an hour.

Clinic nurse, "Your total today is $140"
Me, "I'm paying cash"
Clinic nurse, "Excellent. We'll apply a discount since you aren't going through insurance. After taking 40% off your new total is $84"

This happens all the time. My chiropractor charges insurance $48 a session and my insurance makes me pay $25 of that. When I pay him cash he only charges $20. I save $5 and he doesn't have to hassle with my insurance company. It's a win-win. My health savings account contributions easily pays for all the small stuff.

[Muddy]

I got the flu a few years back and went to a private clinic instead of the hospital despite having insurance. I got two IVs and a shot for my nausea. I checked in, got treated, and checked out in a little over an hour.

Clinic nurse, "Your total today is $140"
Me, "I'm paying cash"
Clinic nurse, "Excellent. We'll apply a discount since you aren't going through insurance. After taking 40% off your new total is $84"

This happens all the time. My chiropractor charges insurance $48 a session and my insurance makes me pay $25 of that. When I pay him cash he only charges $20. I save $5 and he doesn't have to hassle with my insurance company. It's a win-win. My health savings account contributions easily pays for all the small stuff.


yeah, I've never had that response...

[Acid Trip]

yeah, I've never had that response...

Have you ever tried?

[Muddy]

Have you ever tried?

Yes, I lost a doctor due to HMO changes so I had to follow him and pay cash..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I got the flu a few years back and went to a private clinic instead of the hospital despite having insurance. I got two IVs and a shot for my nausea. I checked in, got treated, and checked out in a little over an hour.

Clinic nurse, "Your total today is $140"
Me, "I'm paying cash"
Clinic nurse, "Excellent. We'll apply a discount since you aren't going through insurance. After taking 40% off your new total is $84"

This happens all the time. My chiropractor charges insurance $48 a session and my insurance makes me pay $25 of that. When I pay him cash he only charges $20. I save $5 and he doesn't have to hassle with my insurance company. It's a win-win. My health savings account contributions easily pays for all the small stuff.

A 40% cash discount? Come on....

[AntZ]

Twice in the U.S., I had to take my kids to see a doctor. Once was even the emergency when my son woke with "kroup" (a type of respiratory infection). Both times the hospitals said the international insurance claims are so complicated, they asked if we could just pay cash, our insurance guarantees reimbursement in such cases anyways. We were never given any kind of discount. The price listed was the price paid!

[Acid Trip]

Are you guys going to private clinics? Where there is one or two doctors and a couple nurses? Antz went to a hospital and I've never gotten a discount at a hospital, only at private clinics.

[FBD]

Provided you can afford it that is..

Real value will be reflected far sooner in that model as opposed to the 3rd party payer where everyone feels free to charge whatever!