Where are the %&@*!# jobs?

[BrownIndian]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Is anybody out there hiring? Seriously. I'm not looking for a job but I'd like to know if any major corporations are actually looking to boost their headcount anytime soon. Do I hear crickets?

 

Investors are continuing to celebrate healthy third-quarter earnings reports in what's turning out to be a far less scary October than usual for stocks. But a lot of the better-than-expected profits are coming thanks to job cuts.

 

And there still doesn't appear to be much evidence of an improvement in the labor markets coming anytime soon.

 

Sun Microsystems (JAVA, Fortune 500) announced Tuesday evening that it was planning to cut 3,000 jobs -- about 10% of its total workforce -- while it waits for regulators to approve its sale to software giant Oracle (ORCL, Fortune 500).

 

The New York Times (NYT) said Monday it was going to get rid of 100 jobs in its newsroom. That works out to an 8% reduction in the editorial staff at the Gray Lady.

 

Earlier this month, struggling PC maker Dell (DELL, Fortune 500) said it was closing a plant in North Carolina, resulting in the loss of more than 900 jobs. And medical equipment manufacturer St. Jude Medical (STJ) said a few weeks ago that it was cutting more jobs than it had originally planned back in the second quarter.

 

These are just a few examples of the continued bloodletting in Corporate America.

 

I hate to beat a dead horse here. Heck, I think this horse has already made a trip to the glue factory. But how can Wall Street remain in such a celebratory mood this earnings season when all signs point to more job losses and rising unemployment as far as the eye can see?

 

Yes, there are several things to be encouraged about these days. Banks appear to have taken a step back from the brink. The housing market looks as if it is stabilizing.

 

And even though rising energy costs could be a bit painful to consumers, the recent surge in the price of oil (not to mention other commodities) also seems to be a confirmation of what investors in stocks are saying: the global recession may really be over.

 

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that many of the companies still announcing big job cuts are, to put it mildly, troubled firms.

[BrownIndian]

more @: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/markets/th...sion=2009102114

------------------------------------

 

Interesting take. The stocks are up but there is no sound jobs in sight. The rest of the world (Asian businesses) have started hiring and are giving out bonuses too !

[ClevelandFanForLife]

how about tare up nafta? sounds good to me.

[Kosar_For_President]

They are not hiring because some are profitable without the labor force. Scarring people into working 80 hours a week, fearing they might lose their jobs. Isn't it ironic that the same money that kept some of these giants afloat are the same ones that took the money from these same tax payers in the first place? What a f*cking scam. Madoff = US government.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

My job was eliminated on 9/30/09 due to the PNC takeover of National City Bank. Luckily I got a severance package. PNC contracts a lot of their jobs out, thus my whole department was eliminated. Hopefully things get better next year.

[SiperBowl]

Learn spanish and open up a mexican only grocery store.

[heckofajobbrownie]

The job market isn't going to come back for quite some time. The stock gains are primarily from cost-cutting - i.e. firing people.

 

We've got a long ways to go. You don't narrowly avoid a depression and have everything be okay in less than a year.

[calfoxwc]

madoff = Obamao

[Kosar_For_President]

madoff = Obamao

 

Nah, Cal, this problem lies on everyone in Congress for letting this shit pass. These senators are living high off the hog on OUR money. I am disliking the guy more and more. But you got to be fair, you can't blame one guy. They are all raping us.

[Kosar_For_President]

The job market isn't going to come back for quite some time. The stock gains are primarily from cost-cutting - i.e. firing people.

 

We've got a long ways to go. You don't narrowly avoid a depression and have everything be okay in less than a year.

 

 

So Heck, pardon my ignorance, what is the exact timeline that is set forth? Give me a run down of THEIR projected turn around and recovery. And if it doesn't are you going to vote Ron Paul next election? It's a bet.

[Chicopee John]

The job market isn't going to come back for quite some time. The stock gains are primarily from cost-cutting - i.e. firing people.

 

We've got a long ways to go. You don't narrowly avoid a depression and have everything be okay in less than a year.

 

And don't forget, employment is a LAGGING indicator.

 

Truth be told, the job situation has been bad for some time. Of course, we didn't pour in nearly $Trillion to get things moving, either.

[Westside Steve]

And don't forget, employment is a LAGGING indicator.

 

Truth be told, the job situation has been bad for some time. Of course, we didn't pour in nearly $Trillion to get things moving, either.

 

 

And this one's taking longer than usual and the projected recovery is weaker.

 

So maybe higher taxes more regulation and exploding deficits aren't the panacea.

 

WSS

 

[calfoxwc]

But 40 of 50 states LOSING JOBS, AFTER THE STIMILUS STIMULI ???

 

Obama: You must pass this IMMEDIATELY, so unemployment will peak at 8% !!!

 

Oops.

 

Didn't work, didn't matter, unemployment still went up, and is going to go up even more,

 

but, at least

 

not as fast as our killer, permanent? national debt that has already skyrocketed towards oblivion.

[heckofajobbrownie]

There is no panacea. That's the point. But only the economically ignorant would be arguing for a return to balanced budgets right now. So yes, we should be running a large deficit right now, and be regulating the financial markets in a more effect way. In fact, government spending is about the only game in town right now, and things would be much worse without it. Does that have a cost? You bet it does. It also has a benefit. If you don't like the economy now, just subtract the stimulus spending from the GDP figures and then tell me how much you like it then.

 

Listen to what you're saying, Steve. You're complaining about the size of the deficit and saying we shouldn't do anything to close that gap (raise taxes) in the same sentence. This is the economic illiteracy and the pie-in-the-sky thinking you're always complaining about in other people, without realizing that you want something for nothing too.

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

So Heck, pardon my ignorance, what is the exact timeline that is set forth? Give me a run down of THEIR projected turn around and recovery. And if it doesn't are you going to vote Ron Paul next election? It's a bet.

 

Pardon my ignorance too, because hell if I know. I can just tell you that the consensus is that many of these jobs that were lost are not coming back, and that consumers are going to be slow to get back into the game. There's no bump coming. We're just keeping ourselves from scraping the bottom. That's all the stimulus was designed to do. It wasn't supposed to make things perfect again and get unemployment back to 5%, and you shouldn't look at it that way.

 

That said, the administration's promises on unemployment after the stimulus package turned out to be wrong. They said it wouldn't go more than 8%. We're now just under 10%, and we should pass that in the next month or two.

 

Which lends credence to what many economists were saying at the time, which was that the stimulus bill was too small, not too large.

 

It all adds up to a prolonged period of high unemployment. As for the recovery, it's already underway. We had growth last quarter. It just isn't going to add up to more jobs anytime soon.

 

And there's little anyone is going to be able to do about it.

[Kosar_For_President]

If you don't like the economy now, just subtract the stimulus spending from the GDP figures and then tell me how much you like it then.

 

My main beef is they did it all at once, it was not a well thought out plan. I still don't agree with it, but at least test it. How much of the money has been distributed and where is it going?

 

Who posted here that one video, to where one lady had no clue where like 8 billion dollars went? I could be mistaken?

 

I agree 100% with Ron Paul here:

 

"You can take care of people, but never with a deficit, never by expanding the spending, the more we do to interfere with the correction - the longer it lasts."

 

1. Allowing bankruptcies to occur vs. rewarding failure with bailouts.

2. Stop inflation by dismantling the Fed and returning to the gold standard.

3. Encourage savings and liquidate debt.

4. Deregulate.

5. Give tax credits to those who take care of themselves, or the doctors who provide their care.

6. Cut government spending, especially on international endeavors. "We spend hundreds of billions of maintaining our empire around the world. Let's bring that money home," he says.

 

But Obama is sending more troops and spending more money.

 

Now that is a plan that is not the quick fix (which you say isn't happening with Obama). A plan that works. It's not rocket science, but the administration in there now makes us believe it is.

 

Obama's plan was a quick fix and the fix is failing.

[BrownIndian]

6. Cut government spending, especially on international endeavors. "We spend hundreds of billions of maintaining our empire around the world. Let's bring that money home," he says.

 

But Obama is sending more troops and spending more money.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I do not agree with Point 6 esp now. We landed up forced into this mess call Afghanistan and we cannot leave that place unattended. It is too late for that now.

[Kosar_For_President]

6. Cut government spending, especially on international endeavors. "We spend hundreds of billions of maintaining our empire around the world. Let's bring that money home," he says.

 

But Obama is sending more troops and spending more money.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I do not agree with Point 6 esp now. We landed up forced into this mess call Afghanistan and we cannot leave that place unattended. It is too late for that now.

 

Right we would lose our revenue from heroin.

[Westside Steve]

There is no panacea. That's the point. But only the economically ignorant would be arguing for a return to balanced budgets right now. So yes, we should be running a large deficit right now, and be regulating the financial markets in a more effect way. In fact, government spending is about the only game in town right now, and things would be much worse without it. Does that have a cost? You bet it does. It also has a benefit. If you don't like the economy now, just subtract the stimulus spending from the GDP figures and then tell me how much you like it then.

 

Listen to what you're saying, Steve. You're complaining about the size of the deficit and saying we shouldn't do anything to close that gap (raise taxes) in the same sentence. This is the economic illiteracy and the pie-in-the-sky thinking you're always complaining about in other people, without realizing that you want something for nothing too.

 

 

It might be if we lived in a vacuum Heck.

We don't anymore.

 

The international opportunities make isolationism obsolete IMO.

There are a lot of places other than the US who can find geese who lay golden eggs.

 

Risk capital needs to be risky.

 

And you gotta admit the "well if we hadn't spent the money it'd have been a lot worse" is a little similar to "well if we'd left Saddam in power he'd be unstoppable now" doesnj't it?

 

Assumptions made in hindsight.

 

 

And BTW since I didn't really have a candidate to support I don't suppose either side would have acted a lot differently as far as the bailouts go.

Just the tone of reportintg the same results.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Oh, come on, Heck.

 

Our deficit spending is a good thing ? It's the only game in town?

 

I thought the deficit was a horrific thing under Bush, because it burdened the following generation with

 

a serious national financial burden?

 

Political expediency is all you know? wth?

 

I think you are the one who is so indocinated with your idealogy that you can't be objective.

 

Most of those jobs are considered not coming back? What, that's more justification

 

for a "civilian security corps" ???

 

You put higher taxes on this country, and you will crush our economy.

 

I swear, I honestly believe you, Shep and mz the pussy became friends at some socialist web site.

 

It seems to be all you know, attacking anyone who isn't, and supporting no matter what, anyone who is.

 

That's pretty gross.

[heckofajobbrownie]

My main beef is they did it all at once, it was not a well thought out plan. I still don't agree with it, but at least test it. How much of the money has been distributed and where is it going?

 

Who posted here that one video, to where one lady had no clue where like 8 billion dollars went? I could be mistaken?

 

I agree 100% with Ron Paul here:

 

"You can take care of people, but never with a deficit, never by expanding the spending, the more we do to interfere with the correction - the longer it lasts."

 

1. Allowing bankruptcies to occur vs. rewarding failure with bailouts.

2. Stop inflation by dismantling the Fed and returning to the gold standard.

3. Encourage savings and liquidate debt.

4. Deregulate.

5. Give tax credits to those who take care of themselves, or the doctors who provide their care.

6. Cut government spending, especially on international endeavors. "We spend hundreds of billions of maintaining our empire around the world. Let's bring that money home," he says.

 

But Obama is sending more troops and spending more money.

 

Now that is a plan that is not the quick fix (which you say isn't happening with Obama). A plan that works. It's not rocket science, but the administration in there now makes us believe it is.

 

Obama's plan was a quick fix and the fix is failing.

 

Kosar, Ron Paul has his moments. This list is not one of them. He's a bit of a crank, you know. Find me one mainstream economist that wants to return to the gold standard. It's craziness.

 

If you let those banks fail as he wishes we would have done, we'd be in a worldwide depression right now. That's almost certain.

 

I think it's good to look at it this way: would you pay kidnappers $50,000 of ransom money to get your daughter back? You might not like paying them that sum, but it beats having them kill your daughter if you don't pay. Then afterwards you can hopefully change things that address the likelihood that the kidnappers will strike again.

 

This is very complicated stuff. Beware of people giving you easy answers.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It might be if we lived in a vacuum Heck.

We don't anymore.

 

The international opportunities make isolationism obsolete IMO.

There are a lot of places other than the US who can find geese who lay golden eggs.

 

Risk capital needs to be risky.

 

And you gotta admit the "well if we hadn't spent the money it'd have been a lot worse" is a little similar to "well if we'd left Saddam in power he'd be unstoppable now" doesnj't it?

 

Assumptions made in hindsight.

 

 

And BTW since I didn't really have a candidate to support I don't suppose either side would have acted a lot differently as far as the bailouts go.

Just the tone of reportintg the same results.

WSS

 

Steve, repeating aphorisms doesn't get us anywhere.

 

And no, not all hindsight commentary is the same because it's in hindsight. And this analogy in particular is silly.

 

I think it's pretty common knowledge that if you let the entire worldwide financial system collapse you would have had a worldwide depression that would have been a lot harder to get out of than the situation we find ourselves in now.

 

But yes, I don't imagine McCain would have done things any differently in terms of bailouts.

[Kosar_For_President]

Kosar, Ron Paul has his moments. This list is not one of them. He's a bit of a crank, you know. Find me one mainstream economist that wants to return to the gold standard. It's craziness.

 

If you let those banks fail as he wishes we would have done, we'd be in a worldwide depression right now. That's almost certain.

 

I think it's good to look at it this way: would you pay kidnappers $50,000 of ransom money to get your daughter back? You might not like paying them that sum, but it beats having them kill your daughter if you don't pay. Then afterwards you can hopefully change things that address the likelihood that the kidnappers will strike again.

 

This is very complicated stuff. Beware of people giving you easy answers.

 

Good thing I have you here (joke). So what will happen if the Fed fails? No more money, no more to borrow, no more land to sell and we don't manufacture anything here? There nothing to back the Fed, except the promise in the United States government. The Fed is based on credit, and the world is cashing in. What's going to happen then? We are just prolonging the inevitable.

[BrownIndian]

Right we would lose our revenue from heroin.

 

So u think that if we go back Afghanistan will fix itself, that Al Quaida will not return and Pakistan will do the patrolling duties sincerely then im afraid u are just way too naive.

[Kosar_For_President]

So u think that if we go back Afghanistan will fix itself, that Al Quaida will not return and Pakistan will do the patrolling duties sincerely then im afraid u are just way too naive.

 

Well it worked for Russia, lol.

 

p.s. naivety is not an option, my brother is there.

[BrownIndian]

Well it worked for Russia, lol.

 

p.s. naivety is not an option, my brother is there.

 

It worked for Russia cos they had no plans of liberating the Afghans and since they LOST the fight they could just pull out. We have sadly sacrificed too many lives and spent too much money and leaving the job unfinished is not just a waste of money but lives too.

[Kosar_For_President]

It worked for Russia cos they had no plans of liberating the Afghans and since they LOST the fight they could just pull out. We have sadly sacrificed too many lives and spent too much money and leaving the job unfinished is not just a waste of money but lives too.

 

You mean it DIDN'T work for Russia. Yea I guess I agree, but I think in the long run, we will be there for many many years to come with no outcome.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, repeating aphorisms doesn't get us anywhere.

 

Not as long as you ignore them.

 

And no, not all hindsight commentary is the same because it's in hindsight.

 

Ahh a Heckism.

Nobody said that. And this analogy in particular is silly.

 

I think it's pretty common knowledge that if you let the entire worldwide financial system collapse you would have had a worldwide depression that would have been a lot harder to get out of than the situation we find ourselves in now.

 

Of course "letting the entire worldwide financial system collapse" wasn't one of the options nor has it been addressed in amy real way.

 

But yes, I don't imagine McCain would have done things any differently in terms of bailouts.

 

Nope.

Hey ya wanna bail out the cassette tape industry?

WSS

 

 

[smalls1129]

Kosar, Ron Paul has his moments. This list is not one of them. He's a bit of a crank, you know. Find me one mainstream economist that wants to return to the gold standard. It's craziness.

 

If you let those banks fail as he wishes we would have done, we'd be in a worldwide depression right now. That's almost certain.

 

I think it's good to look at it this way: would you pay kidnappers $50,000 of ransom money to get your daughter back? You might not like paying them that sum, but it beats having them kill your daughter if you don't pay. Then afterwards you can hopefully change things that address the likelihood that the kidnappers will strike again.

 

This is very complicated stuff. Beware of people giving you easy answers.

 

 

So you're saying that the government has kidnapped our future and we must pay this '50,000' figure to secure it? And has far as the gold standard goes I believe that most economist will be begging for the gold standard in three years when our credit rating gets lowered and the dollar becomes worthless overnight. The bottom line is if China wasn't so dependent on us buying the goods that they manufacture they would have already called in their debt and no of this other stuff would have mattered.

 

It was just yesterday that Mooney's (SP?) warned that what they thought would be a 10 year process where the FED would be 'bankrupt' (for lack of a better term) to 3-5 years. So in 9 months of the current admin (combined with much bad spending of the former) they're predicting bankruptcy in half the time.

[Kosar_For_President]

So you're saying that the government has kidnapped our future and we must pay this '50,000' figure to secure it? And has far as the gold standard goes I believe that most economist will be begging for the gold standard in three years when our credit rating gets lowered and the dollar becomes worthless overnight. The bottom line is if China wasn't so dependent on us buying the goods that they manufacture they would have already called in their debt and no of this other stuff would have mattered.

 

It was just yesterday that Mooney's (SP?) warned that what they thought would be a 10 year process where the FED would be 'bankrupt' (for lack of a better term) to 3-5 years. So in 9 months of the current admin (combined with much bad spending of the former) they're predicting bankruptcy in half the time.

 

As Heck puts it, without any link or disregard for facts, "no economist wants to go back to the gold standard". Yea no shit, because they are raping us and are making a fortune doing it. There are no consequences for their actions except a bailout from US, TAXPAYER MONEY. If they did this shit with a gold standard, knowing that it was THEIR gold assets they were trading, none of this shit happen.

 

And Obama is acting like he's cracking down on the CEO's of the companies that are not yet paying the US back from the bailout. HELLO, they already have 50 million in their bank, what does lowering their salary from $1 mil a year to $200,000 going to do. Come on.

 

And I don't play favorites here, if I was here for the Bush discussions I would of been saying the stuff about him. Their all crooks.