And the layoffs start...

[CosmicCowboy]

Freedom Works has put together a list of companies that will be laying off employees as a result of President Barack Obama's health care law:
Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Others
A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:
Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs
Covidien - 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs
Hill Rom - 200 layoffs
Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a shift from full-time to part-time workers.


Read more: PICKET: Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/#ixzz2BkkfkNaw
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's all anticipatory and the powers that be have not demonstrated what I would call prescience.

[boutons_deux]

"a shift from full-time to part-time workers."

already well under way, has been, no matter who got elected. outsourcing to contractors and part-timing are major ways corps transfer salaries+benefits from employees to investors.

The above post, if it has ANY truth as ACA being the ONLY reason for layoffs (probably mostly a tea baggin/UCA lie), is a huge incentive for a hard-core public insurance option for all, including any and all employees.

[ChumpDumper]

And the scapegoating begins.

[101A]

Fuck em.

I'm hiring.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wonder how many of these owners are Republicans..

[Drachen]

Fuck em.

I'm hiring.

For? and Where?

[Th'Pusher]

CC you wanna bet that the unemployment rate will be higher when Barry leaves office than it is today?

[CosmicCowboy]

CC you wanna bet that the unemployment rate will be higher when Barry leaves office than it is today?

No, because of the way they calculate the rate. It doesn't reflect all the people that get pushed out of full time work to part time work.

[boutons_deux]

and "employment gains" never take into account that big majority of new jobs are shitty sub-$15/hour rather than quality jobs.

by 2016, unless the next inevitable "free market" financial sector crises arrives, the economy + jobs should be much better, simply because it'll be 4 years more past the Banskters Great Depression.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

No, because of the way they calculate the rate. It doesn't reflect all the people that get pushed out of full time work to part time work.

That is because they are still employed you idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

That is because they are still employed you idiot.

Go from 40 hours a week with benefits to 30 hours and no benefits and see how YOU like it fucktard.

[101A]

For? and Where?

Eligibility specialist.
COBRA Specialist
Claim's Examiner

(My company sells group insurance, provides HR outsourcing services related to that & regulation compliance, and we are also a TPA that sets up and processes claims for self insured employers)

[ChumpDumper]

Go from 40 hours a week with benefits to 30 hours and no benefits and see how YOU like it fucktard.
It's not the dislike rate.

[ElNono]

lol freedom works

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not the dislike rate.

No it's called being underemployed.

it's counted in the U6 rate. Dems like to always quote the U3 because it excludes the long term unemployed and the underemployed.

[ChumpDumper]

No it's called being underemployed.Also not unemployed.

As long as the US is going to go through the charade of supplying health insurance through employers, this is what we're going to be faced with. We'll stop pretending and catch up with the rest of the world someday.

[CosmicCowboy]

Also not unemployed.

As long as the US is going to go through the charade of supplying health insurance through employers, this is what we're going to be faced with. We'll stop pretending and catch up with the rest of the world someday.

Don't you know? Employers are rich! It's only fair they be forced to provide insurance!

[CosmicCowboy]

lol freedom works

Why is that a LOL if the statistics they compiled are true?

[SnakeBoy]

Also not unemployed.

As long as the US is going to go through the charade of supplying health insurance through employers, this is what we're going to be faced with. We'll stop pretending and catch up with the rest of the world someday.

Never going to happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't you know? Employers are rich! It's only fair they be forced to provide insurance!Don't you know? The employees are richer than their employers! It's only fair they pay everything out of pocket!

[clambake]

but they'll still over inflate their r&d cost to justify their pricing.

[ElNono]

Why is that a LOL if the statistics they compiled are true?

How many statistics they compiled on jobs created by Obamacare? More or less none? Are those statistics not true either?

Freedomworks will tell you half the story. They've stated many times what their agenda is when it comes to Obamacare.

[Th'Pusher]

No it's called being underemployed.

it's counted in the U6 rate. Dems like to always quote the U3 because it excludes the long term unemployed and the underemployed.

Ok. Lets use the U6 rate as our metric. I'll bet you $1k that the Unemployment/underemplyment rate will be lower four years from today than it is today

[101A]

..

[ElNono]

Heck, the royal butthurt on Freedomworks last tuesday night was probably a sight to behold, tbh

[CosmicCowboy]

How many statistics they compiled on jobs created by Obamacare? More or less none? Are those statistics not true either?

Freedomworks will tell you half the story. They've stated many times what their agenda is when it comes to Obamacare.

Fine, find an article about the coming jobs boom from Obamacare and rebut.

[ElNono]

Ironically, Obamacare is the primary reason I am hiring.

We just completed CCHIT certification on our system... more work created there. The new exchanges create jobs too.

Not going to hear that from Freedomworks.

[ElNono]

Fine, find an article about the coming jobs boom from Obamacare and rebut.

Well, you're hearing it first hand here...

If anything, let's see what employment numbers look like in 2014 or whenever the law actually gets fully implemented.

[101A]

I sell health insurance to companies.

Obamacare makes them cover their employees with health insurance or pay a fine.

Of COURSE my business is growing!

[ChumpDumper]

Never going to happen.Surprised we got this far, but Obamacare is a Republican idea after all.

[johnsmith]

Rumor has it that my company is just preparing to pay the fines and will make employees buy their own insurance.


Rumor though, so who knows.

[johnsmith]

Company has 11,000 employees btw.

[boutons_deux]

America's health care system is deeply, widely fucked up, duh!

It's going to take deep and wide, and painful, adjustments to fix it.

Repugs, in 100% bad faith, and the health care system will bitch all the way, and will try to kill ACA at every step.

Socialized industrial countries not owned and operated by their corporations have been working hard for decades on their universal health systems. Even then it's horribly complex job.

Randian, greedy, "fuck all y'all-I got mine", "Christian" America fucked by its health system will be extremely difficult to fix, will take decades.

ACA will be right up there with landmarks in the PROGRESS of American civilization.

[LnGrrrR]

Fuck em.

I'm hiring.


Way to go 101A. :tu Thanks for that.

[LnGrrrR]

http://auburnpub.com/news/opinion/columnists/bill_balyszak/balyszak-welch-allyn-job-cuts-rationale-not-adding-up/article_626da615-7aa3-5b42-b380-4873136d3269.html
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/opinion_today_blaming_health_c.html

I wonder how much the take-home pay for these CEOs is each year? *shrug*

[boutons_deux]

Rumor has it that my company is just preparing to pay the fines and will make employees buy their own insurance.


Rumor though, so who knows.

Are the ACA fines tax deductible? employer's cost of group insurance is.

[CosmicCowboy]

I sell health insurance to companies.

Obamacare makes them cover their employees with health insurance or pay a fine.

Of COURSE my business is growing!

I'm under 50 employees and may go the opposite direction. I may just give my guys raises and let Obama pay for their insurance instead of me paying for it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Most of my guys make about 50K gross a year, so after deductions Obama will pay for most of their health insurance.

[ElNono]

I'm under 50 employees and may go the opposite direction. I may just give my guys raises and let Obama pay for their insurance instead of me paying for it.

And that's your right and it's fine... I personally think that if Obamacare works as a tool to splinter health insurance from employer payroll, then on that specific aspect, it's a positive step.

[CosmicCowboy]

When people finally realize how much more Obamacare is going to cost than has been projected they are not going to be happy. Just my one little company will be a $90,000 hickey they weren't expecting.

[boutons_deux]

The more ACA hurts, the bigger the groundswell for a hardcore public insurance option for all.

[RandomGuy]

25% of health care dollars go to overhead that has no effect on care.

If health care gets more efficient and costs less, one would expect job losses. The few people who lose their jobs would be more than offset by the fact that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper.

Knowing this, though, requires a familiarity with economics, something that seems to escape conservative confirmation biases.

[ElNono]

Or at least will make people more aware of the price gouging going on...

[boutons_deux]

"healthcare for everybody else got cheaper"

health CARE won't get cheaper, but health INSURANCE could be.

I'm all for govt-trained and -salaried docs + nurses in govt-owned facilities operating on salaries, not fee-for-service, and NON-PROFIT. It's way past time for Human-Americans to fuck back at the greedy, gouging for-profit medical business.

[Wild Cobra]

And that's your right and it's fine... I personally think that if Obamacare works as a tool to splinter health insurance from employer payroll, then on that specific aspect, it's a positive step.
We disagree.

Employer provided health insurance used to be a tool, as other benefits are, as en incentive to get good employees. It doesn't surprise me that your lowest common denominator attitude feels competition should be extinguished.

[Wild Cobra]

25% of health care dollars go to overhead that has no effect on care.

Are you suggesting it will get more efficient with Obama's expanding bureaucracy?

[101A]

25% of health care dollars go to overhead that has no effect on care.

If health care gets more efficient and costs less, one would expect job losses. The few people who lose their jobs would be more than offset by the fact that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper.

Knowing this, though, requires a familiarity with economics, something that seems to escape conservative confirmation biases.

Unfortunately, the ACA does nothing to reduce the actual cost of healthcare; in fact by mandating minimum coverages that are higher than previous, it makes it more expensive. Add in the addl. regs it brought to bear, and it certainly doesn't do anything to decrease that 25% you talk about.

Bouton's idea above about Govt. owned not-for-profit hospitals and clinics, with salaried providers could potentially reduce costs. Not sure how he proposes to get the docs to work there, however.

[RandomGuy]

Unfortunately, the ACA does nothing to reduce the actual cost of healthcare; in fact by mandating minimum coverages that are higher than previous, it makes it more expensive. Add in the addl. regs it brought to bear, and it certainly doesn't do anything to decrease that 25% you talk about.

Bouton's idea above about Govt. owned not-for-profit hospitals and clinics, with salaried providers could potentially reduce costs. Not sure how he proposes to get the docs to work there, however.

Salaries. Plain and simple. High enough to attract people.

If you can get doctors who don't base their pay on the number of procedures they perform, that would go a LOOOONG way, IMO.

Pretty perverse incentive, and VERY obvious place to start.

[ElNono]

Employer provided health insurance used to be a tool, as other benefits are, as en incentive to get good employees.

It's still a tool for those that want to provide it...

The reality, however, is that it puts the company between you and care. It insulated employees from the realities of healthcare cost and in some cases caused them to be actually underinsured.


It doesn't surprise me that your lowest common denominator attitude feels competition should be extinguished.

What does "lowest common denominator attitude" even means?

What competition gets extinguished? As a matter of fact, you get more people individually purchasing insurance, which should actually foster competition (you're adding demand).

If you would have actually thought it through, you would have brought up that it might increase cost due to the individual underwriting and overhead.

I'll chalk this comment up to one other instance where you didn't think before posting.

[TeyshaBlue]

25% of health care dollars go to overhead that has no effect on care.

If health care gets more efficient and costs less, one would expect job losses. The few people who lose their jobs would be more than offset by the fact that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper.

Knowing this, though, requires a familiarity with economics, something that seems to escape conservative confirmation biases.

lol. I'll wait for you to ask the next guy who gets his job cut. I'm sure he'll be happy that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

Fuck your "conservative confirmation biases".

[101A]

Salaries. Plain and simple. High enough to attract people.

If you can get doctors who don't base their pay on the number of procedures they perform, that would go a LOOOONG way, IMO.

Pretty perverse incentive, and VERY obvious place to start.

Many docs are already corporate owned providers; get paid by a salary.

Buddy of mine is a perinatologist; works for a corp. with over 1,200 employees

Salary = 600K

He left his job as an airforce (govt.) doc where his salary was 1/5 that.

[ElNono]

lol. I'll wait for you to ask the next guy who gets his job cut. I'm sure he'll be happy that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

In RG's defense he never said the guy cut would be happy.

It sucks, but this happens all the time. Entire factories replaced by robots, and people laid off. People love their $150 Nexus phone, but nobody is buying the $500 human-made version.

[Wild Cobra]

In RG's defense he never said the guy cut would be happy.

It sucks, but this happens all the time. Entire factories replaced by robots, and people laid off. People love their $150 Nexus phone, but nobody is buying the $500 human-made version.
Or the Made in USA version.

[TeyshaBlue]

In RG's defense he never said the guy cut would be happy.

It sucks, but this happens all the time. Entire factories replaced by robots, and people laid off. People love their $150 Nexus phone, but nobody is buying the $500 human-made version.

The guy that get's his job cut is not going to be offset by cheaper healthcare.

[ElNono]

Or the Made in USA version.

There's no Made in USA version. Google's fiduciary duty is to it's shareholders, not the good ol' USA.

[TeyshaBlue]

In RG's defense he never said the guy cut would be happy.

It sucks, but this happens all the time. Entire factories replaced by robots, and people laid off. People love their $150 Nexus phone, but nobody is buying the $500 human-made version.

When there is a mass produced handmade phone, I'll eat your shorts.

[TeyshaBlue]

The guy that get's his job cut is not going to be offset by cheaper healthcare.

That doesn't even make sense.

[ElNono]

The guy that get's his job cut is not going to be offset by cheaper healthcare.

what? :lol

RG's point was that if you can increase efficiency, job losses are part of that. The work the person was doing was either replaced by a machine or no longer needed.

Now, we can discuss whether the savings from that salary no longer being there gets passed on to consumers or goes to make somebody's bottom line fatter, but that's a different story altogether.

[Vici]

We just hired 120 this month, and we pay for our employees health care already... If some employers are going to be dicks about it, there are plenty others who will be willing to pick the best from those companies and take care of them.

[CosmicCowboy]

When there is a mass produced handmade phone, I'll eat your shorts.

http://www.mikanet.com/museum/images/telephone2.jpg

I even remember when the phone company owned them all and you rented them from them.

[Wild Cobra]

There's no Made in USA version. Google's fiduciary duty is to it's shareholders, not the good ol' USA.

No Shit Sherlock. No wonder our standard of living keeps dropping.

[ElNono]

No Shit Sherlock. No wonder our standard of living keeps dropping.

:lol you really have a big confusion with what "standard of living" means... Expensive cellphones don't increase your standard of living, they actually decrease it.

[Drachen]

Not a phone, but a google product made in the USA did come out this year.












Too bad it was colossally stupid and is no longer being sold despite being introduced 4 months ago.

[TeyshaBlue]

what? :lol

RG's point was that if you can increase efficiency, job losses are part of that. The work the person was doing was either replaced by a machine or no longer needed.

Now, we can discuss whether the savings from that salary no longer being there gets passed on to consumers or goes to make somebody's bottom line fatter, but that's a different story altogether.
That's great, EN. Now factor in unemployment and other safety net costs, and get back to me with a bottom line on the savings.

I don't see any studies that factor this in....just talking points about how if we reduce overhead, everybody wins. Offsets!

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.mikanet.com/museum/images/telephone2.jpg

I even remember when the phone company owned them all and you rented them from them.

lol I can still remember when Southwestern Bell had store fronts where you could look at display models and make a purchase.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol you really have a big confusion with what "standard of living" means... Expensive cellphones don't increase your standard of living, they actually decrease it.
One of your problems is seeing things in a static rather than dynamic fashion. Our standard of living should be increasing, but is level. Just because existing technology gets cheaper doesn't mean shit. Like I said, it would take too long to elaborate, but we have a false sense of the standard of living. Look at housing, cars, and food prices vs. income in our present day vs. the past. Stop thinking like a child, marveling at the new toys that come out all the time.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol you really have a big confusion with what "standard of living" means... Expensive cellphones don't increase your standard of living, they actually decrease it.

Seriously dude? My companies smart phones have increased productivity dramatically which increases everyone's standard of living.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol I can still remember when Southwestern Bell had store fronts where you could look at display models and make a purchase.

OK, fess up now...you got the Princess, didn't you?

http://www.skokienet.org/files/images/princess_phone.jpg

[ElNono]

That's great, EN. Now factor in unemployment and other safety net costs, and get back to me with a bottom line on the savings.

I don't see any studies that factor this in....just talking points about how if we reduce overhead, everybody wins. Offsets!

Sure Teysha, but then the question is: does government needs to avoid long term efficiency improvements and cost cutting in order to avoid those other temporary associated costs?

Then again, we're discussing government efficiency and cost cutting, which is largely an oxymoron, tbh :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

And for you youngsters:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2011/12/ancestors-had-tails.gif

[ElNono]

Seriously dude? My companies smart phones have increased productivity dramatically which increases everyone's standard of living.

The question wasn't if cellphones increase the standard of living. The question is if expensive cellphones increase the standard of living.

If you can pay $150 or $500 for the same exact cellphone, which price point gives you the better "standard of living"? Same exact phone.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure Teysha, but then the question is: does government needs to avoid long term efficiency improvements and cost cutting in order to avoid those other temporary associated costs?

Then again, we're discussing government efficiency and cost cutting, which is largely an oxymoron, tbh :lol

Please don't try to convince us how efficient government is.


"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."

If they had just mailed the motherfuckers a check instead of having all those fucked up programs they wouldn't be in poverty...

[z0sa]

I remember memorizing friends' and family's telephone numbers when I was kid. Now I can barely remember my mom's.

[ElNono]

One of your problems is seeing things in a static rather than dynamic fashion.

Actually, my problem is trying to have a discussion about incredibly basic economy concepts with you.

I should know better than that.

[z0sa]

Please don't try to convince us how efficient government is.



If they had just mailed the motherfuckers a check instead of having all those fucked up programs they wouldn't be in poverty...

True but we all know Joe Blow would want his check too.

[CosmicCowboy]

The question wasn't if cellphones increase the standard of living. The question is if expensive cellphones increase the standard of living.


Sure they do. If my guys run into a problem on a job now they can e-mail me pictures/video and we can talk issues through without me ever leaving my desk. Just ten years ago they would call me, I would get in my truck, they would sit around while I drove there, we would resolve the problem, then they would finally get back to work as I drove back to the office. Huge time saver for me and well worth a $300 phone bill every month.

[TeyshaBlue]

OK, fess up now...you got the Princess, didn't you?

http://www.skokienet.org/files/images/princess_phone.jpg

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/really1.png

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

You're not understanding the point CC. Would your standard of living be higher if you paid an extra 200 dollars for the same phones? You're completely missing what EN was saying to WC.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sure Teysha, but then the question is: does government needs to avoid long term efficiency improvements and cost cutting in order to avoid those other temporary associated costs?

Then again, we're discussing government efficiency and cost cutting, which is largely an oxymoron, tbh :lol

I'm just tickled that we are now using the inverse of the bailout logic, tbh. We must shed jobs to become super-efficient!

[rascal]

Those companies just don't have the work to support the workers. The health care cost is just an excuse. If they had the work they would employ the workers because they would not be turning away work.

[ElNono]

Sure they do. If my guys run into a problem on a job now they can e-mail me pictures/video and we can talk issues through without me ever leaving my desk. Just ten years ago they would call me, I would get in my truck, they would sit around while I drove there, we would resolve the problem, then they would finally get back to work as I drove back to the office. Huge time saver for me and well worth a $300 phone bill every month.


:lmao

You're not understanding the point CC. Would your standard of living be higher if you paid an extra 200 dollars for the same phones? You're completely missing what EN was saying to WC.

:lol exactly

[ElNono]

I'm just tickled that we are now using the inverse of the bailout logic, tbh. We must shed jobs to become super-efficient!

Well, efficiency improvements will happen. And jobs will be lost as a result. That's the norm.

The stimulus was supposed to be an exceptional act. Just like the QE, etc. That is, specific distortions with specific goals in mind.

[LnGrrrR]

I really hope CC gets it this time. :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

Cheap cell phones don't do high quality photos/video. They are worth it to me.

I paid $1200 for my first portable cell phone and $.30 a minute to talk.

A Motorola brick with an extended antenna plus a truck mounted (higher transmitting power) one that honked my horn when the phone rang....:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Cheap cell phones don't do high quality photos/video. They are worth it to me.

I paid $1200 for my first portable cell phone and $.30 a minute to talk.

A Motorola brick with an extended antenna plus a truck mounted (higher transmitting power) one that honked my horn when the phone rang....:lol

You're still not quite getting it, are you?

Pretend the SAME...EXACT... PHONE costs $100 in Universe A, and $500 in Universe B. Which person has the increased standard of living? The man in Universe A who bought his phone for $100 and still has $400 to spend, or the person in Universe B who spent $500 and has no more money to spend?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

You're not understanding the point CC. Would your standard of living be higher if you paid an extra 200 dollars for the same phones? You're completely missing what EN was saying to WC.
Except that EN twisted the point I was making. I never said such a thing.

[Wild Cobra]

You're still not quite getting it, are you?

Pretend the SAME...EXACT... PHONE costs $100 in Universe A, and $500 in Universe B. Which person has the increased standard of living? The man in Universe A who bought his phone for $100 and still has $400 to spend, or the person in Universe B who spent $500 and has no more money to spend?
You are twisting things too.

I give you guys enough cord to hang yourselves with, and you don't disappoint.

[LnGrrrR]

You are twisting things too.

I give you guys enough cord to hang yourselves with, and you don't disappoint.

Not at all WC. We're off on a slight tangent. And given your propensity to be misunderstood, I don't think I'd brag about it. "Look, I said something which people didn't get, so I'm the winner!"

[Th'Pusher]

Not at all WC. We're off on a slight tangent. And given your propensity to be misunderstood, I don't think I'd brag about it. "Look, I said something which people didn't get, so I'm the winner!"
:lol

[Wild Cobra]

Don't you guys get it?

Our manufacturing jobs are going away, more and more all the time, as we buy cheap technology elsewhere. Our effective incomes are decreasing with these cheap toys. It now requires both parents working and it never used to.

Why is this so freaking hard to follow:

Exactly, in my definition either median income has to go up or the cost of living has to come down in order to restore the "middle class".


or maybe the standard of living.


The standard of living is diminishing, as we keep buying cheap imports.


uh? :lol


I know.

It's over your head, and I don't feel like elaborating as it would take a few paragraphs.


How does buying cheaper (iow: getting more for your dollars) diminishes the standard of living?

Sounds exactly the opposite.


In RG's defense he never said the guy cut would be happy.

It sucks, but this happens all the time. Entire factories replaced by robots, and people laid off. People love their $150 Nexus phone, but nobody is buying the $500 human-made version.


Or the Made in USA version.


There's no Made in USA version. Google's fiduciary duty is to it's shareholders, not the good ol' USA.


No Shit Sherlock. No wonder our standard of living keeps dropping.


:lol you really have a big confusion with what "standard of living" means... Expensive cellphones don't increase your standard of living, they actually decrease it.

One of your problems is seeing things in a static rather than dynamic fashion. Our standard of living should be increasing, but is level. Just because existing technology gets cheaper doesn't mean shit. Like I said, it would take too long to elaborate, but we have a false sense of the standard of living. Look at housing, cars, and food prices vs. income in our present day vs. the past. Stop thinking like a child, marveling at the new toys that come out all the time.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes WC, I got what you meant. However, we had gone off on a bit of a tangent.

[ElNono]

What you're saying has to do with wage stagnation and class mobility, not standard of living. Buying cheaper shit *DOES* matter, even more so when wages are stagnant.

The US has a competitiveness problem because it has an incredibly high standard of living compared to other producer nations.

What happened since the good old days is globalization: other countries catching up with technology and US companies shipping jobs abroad, where salaries are cheaper because their standards of living are cheaper. You could easily argue that the US is victim of it's own success at this point.

[Wild Cobra]

What you're saying has to do with wage stagnation and class mobility, not standard of living. Buying cheaper shit *DOES* matter, even more so when wages are stagnant.

The US has a competitiveness problem because it has an incredibly high standard of living compared to other producer nations.

What happened since the good old days is globalization: other countries catching up with technology and US companies shipping jobs abroad, where salaries are cheaper because their standards of living are cheaper. You could easily argue that the US is victim of it's own success at this point.
I read from your answer, you approve of the least common denominator aspect.

[ElNono]

I read from your answer, you approve of the least common denominator aspect.

:lol what does that even mean?

Actually, nevermind. Already wasted too much time explaining what you seemingly can't even grasp, but everyone else understood quite clearly.

[Expert]

It's all anticipatory and the powers that be have not demonstrated what I would call prescience.

Or basically they expect something so they act on it instead of waiting to see how much money they lose. Being an expert is hard, but you make it look so easy.

[Expert]

I read from your answer, you approve of the least common denominator aspect.

The simplicity of your math causes piloerections to occur all over my body. Were I to meet you I would surely lay down my pen, Dr Nash.

[Expert]

Don't you guys get it?

Our manufacturing jobs are going away, more and more all the time, as we buy cheap technology elsewhere. Our effective incomes are decreasing with these cheap toys. It now requires both parents working and it never used to.

Why is this so freaking hard to follow:

Actually no. You don't hold the prerequisites to qualify for further explanation.

[Agloco]

Or basically they expect something so they act on it instead of waiting to see how much money they lose. Being an expert is hard, but you make it look so easy.


The simplicity of your math causes piloerections to occur all over my body. Were I to meet you I would surely lay down my pen, Dr Nash.


Actually no. You don't hold the prerequisites to qualify for further explanation.

:lol

Ok, whose troll is this?

[Agloco]

Another "I'm misunderstood" shitfest brought to you by WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Another "I'm misunderstood" shitfest brought to you by WC.
Not my troll. I was wondering the same thing. I only have this one ID.

[boutons_deux]

How America Is Turning into a 3rd World Nation in 4 Easy Steps

New reports that Taiwanese transnational manufacturing corporation Foxconn may be opening up some plants in the United States indicate that our nation has now entered the terminal fourth stage of "third-worldization" or what may be better referred to simply as "recolonization."

In case you don't know, Foxconn is China's largest private employer and is responsible for making many of those parts that go into your Apple iPhones, iPads, and iPods.

While Steve Jobs may have been a visionary when it came to technological design, he wasn't a fan of labor unions - or American workers in general - so he outsourced most of his corporation's manufacturing to Foxconn, which was notorious for its low-wage labor.

Foxconn workers live in over-crowded dorms that are located on the factory grounds. They work 12-hour shifts, and are routinely exposed to dangerous working conditions. Recently, 137 Foxconn workers fell ill after they were forced to use toxic chemicals to clean iPads. And in the last five years, 17 Foxconn workers have committed suicide on the job. Nets have since been installed around the factory to catch workers jumping out of windows.

So why the heck would Foxconn look beyond their Libertarian paradise of no labor laws to come to the United States and employ a bunch of Americans?

To know the answer to that question, we have to understand the four steps the United States is currently racing through to become a third-world nation.

Step 1: Destroy Manufacturing

From 1791, when our nation's first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton created an 11-point plan for American manufacturers, all the way until just the last few decades, the United States protected its manufacturing base with high tariffs on imports and government support for domestic industries.

This "protectionist" approach to trade transformed the United States into the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods, which built and sustained an enormous middle class of Americans working in factories collecting high wages.

Then the forces of globalization crept in, extolling the virtues of a world economy free from national boundaries and protections for domestic manufacturing.

With Reagan's Revolution in the 1980's, Alexander Hamilton's 11-point plant was scrapped. Tariffs were ditched and then Bill Clinton moved into the White House in the 1990's and continued Reagan's trade policies and committed the United States to so-called Free Trade agreements like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, removing all the protections that had kept our domestic manufacturing industries safe from foreign corporate predators for two centuries.

In the 1992 Presidential debate, third-party candidate Ross Perot famously warned about a "giant sucking sound" of American jobs going south of the border to low-wage nations.

Perot was right, but no one in our government listened to him.

In the 1960's, one-in-three Americans worked in manufacturing, producing things of lasting wealth. Today, after jumping head first into one free trade agreement after another, only one-in-ten Americans works in manufacturing.

Over the last decade, 50,000 manufacturing plants in the United States have closed down and five million manufacturing jobs have been lost. They didn't disappear, they just moved away to low-wage factories like Foxconn, in foreign nations.

Before Reagan won the White House, the United States was the world's largest importer of raw goods and exporter of manufactured goods as well as the world's largest creditor. But today, we're the world's largest exporter of raw materials and importer of manufactured good. No surprise, we're also the world's largest debtor.

When manufacturing dies, the economy goes with it.

Step 2: Harvest the Middle Class

America's working class no longer builds TVs or computers or furniture on assembly lines; they now flip burgers at McDonalds and turn down the sheets at Holiday Inns. And those high-skilled workers who used to design the marvels of manufacturing now manufacture credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities on Wall Street.

In the 1950's when our economy still embraced Hamilton's 11-point plan, manufacturing used to account for a quarter of GDP, but today it accounts for around a tenth, replaced by the low-wage service sector and Wall Street. And this new economy can't support a middle class. A service sector can't create lasting wealth, nor can Wall Street.

Before NAFTA, the average American taxpayer earned an inflation-adjusted income of $33,400 a year. By 2008, that number dropped to just $33,000. Working Americans maxed out their credit cards and took out a second mortgage on their homes just to make ends meet. Eventually, even that wasn't enough to make ends meet.

On top of that, new financialized industries have risen up that specialize in harvesting even more wealth from the middle class. So-called private equity firms like Bain Capital execute a business model that depends on taking over American businesses, loading them with debt, laying off workers, and outsourcing labor to low-wage nations. Mitt Romney himself described Bain's strategy as "harvesting companies for a profit."

Even American factories that were more profitable than ever, like the Sensata plant in Freeport, Illinois, aren't safe from this outsourcing. Thanks to globalization, it's just a cheaper to employ labor in low-wage nations even if that means laying off 170 American workers and devastating an entire local economy.

Today upwards of fifty million Americans are living in poverty and depend on food stamps. The middle class devolved into the working class, which further devolved into the working poor class.

Local economies are collapsing, states are going bankrupt, and workers are being tenderized for colonization in the near future.

Step 3: Export American Wealth

There's a hefty price tag associated with transitioning from the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods to the world's largest importer of manufactured goods. That price comes in the form of trade deficits.

In 2011, the United States had a trade deficit of over a half-trillion dollars with the rest of the world. Essentially, $558 billion U.S. dollars is being pocketed every single year by developing nations that are now manufacturing the goods that used to be manufactured right here in the United States.

With their pockets overflowing with U.S. dollars, foreign investors begin buying up American industries. Every single second, more than $4,000 of American industry is being sold off to foreign investors.

In a virtuous economy like the United States used to run, wealth is recycled within the community. Revenue earned by the local grocery store is invested in the local bank, which then hands out loans to local businesses to hire local workers who collect paychecks to shop at the local grocery store and so on and so forth.

But when foreign investors are injected into the equation, increasingly larger chunks of wealth are not re-invested in the local economy, but are instead invested overseas in the developing world.

This is one reason why President Obama's stimulus package may not have had quite the bang for the buck as anticipated. When Americans use their extra dollars to buy a new LED television, or new clothes, or home improvements, there's a good chance that a lot of the profits are actually going to overseas investors, stimulating their economy instead of ours.

Step 4: Recolonize

With American workers desperate for any kind of opportunity to work, Foxconn and other foreign corporations now have access to a brand new pool of cheap labor.

We've seen other companies before Foxconn take advantage of these new low-wage American workers.

Ikea recently opened up a factory in Virginia, which just so happens to be a right-to-work for less state that's not hospitable to labor unions. In Sweden, where Ikea is based, workers earn at least $19 an hour and enjoy a minimum of 5 weeks paid vacation every year. Those are fairly high labor costs. So executives at Ikea have come to the United States, where they can pay workers just $8 an hour and give away just 12 days of vacation a year.

German auto manufacturer Volkswagen has also found an advantage in moving manufacturing back to the United States. They recently opened up a plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee - another right-to-work for less state. Unlike in Germany, where all the workers at major manufacturing firms are unionized, collect high wages, have good benefits, can go on strike, and sit on the company board and have a say in decisions about the company's future, none of that exists in Chattanooga.

In Chattanooga, workers are not unionized and make just $14.50 an hour. It's pretty clear what's happening, we're becoming the world's latest cheap labor source.

Not only that, it's much cheaper to send goods to American consumers when you don't have to ship the goods from halfway around the world. Plus, with growing attention paid to the fact that nothing is made in America anymore besides bombs and warplanes, foreign corporations would be delighted to be able to stamp "Made in the USA" on the bottom of their products, even if they were made by low-wage Americans.

Which is why Foxconn might be considering coming over here, too. It's hard to imagine American workers having to endure the same working conditions that Chinese workers endure at Foxconn, where nets prevent workers from committing suicide.

But given the agenda of House Republicans, that tragic reality may not be so far-fetched. Generations of labor law that produced a minimum wage, a forty-hour workweek, workplace safety laws, and child labor laws are all under attack by Republicans in Congress. And if they succeed, then there is absolutely nothing protecting American workers from suffering the same fate as sweatshop workers overseas.

The reason why this fourth stage is terminal is because there are few treatment options available anymore. If the United States were to suddenly rethink its trade policies and enact tariffs again, they would have little impact since these foreign corporations have already implanted their manufacturing centers here in the United States. The profits would continue to go overseas rather than being circulated in the local economy.

Yes, in the end, we might get a lot of the jobs that were lost in Step One, but they won't be good-paying jobs at American-owned companies. They'll be low-wage jobs at foreign-owned companies, with all the profit created from those going out of the United States. At its core that's a form of colonization. Look up King Leopold's extractive economy in Congo for a reference.

The United States is rapidly un-developing in a way never before witnessed in the history of the world. And it would be a remarkable spectacle to behold, if it weren't so damn tragic to our fellow citizens.

Let your elected representatives know that Ross Perot was right, and it's time to end this so-called "free trade" insanity.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-america-turning-3rd-world-nation-4-easy-steps (http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-america-turning-3rd-world-nation-4-easy-steps)

The profoundly unpatriotic United Corporations of America, flying the flag on their corporate premises, are loyal only the profits, not to the USA.

[Drachen]

:lol

Not my troll. I was wondering the same thing. I only have this one ID.

[Expert]

Not my troll. I was wondering the same thing. I only have this one ID.

And one ego and one super ego.

I feel the glaring eyes of a Google Earth manhunt in progress as I speak. I fear the crumb in my keyboard has caused a typing nuance that can be traced back to the molecular weight of the food and from there back to the producer and the very location it was purchased. That will narrow down my position and when the moon Triton reaches it's apogee the shadow it casts, viewed through a sextant of course (and highly magnified through a classified process) would show the time of it's dropping, and give rise to the notion that a certain someone whom Google Earth might have captured as a dark figure on a curtain of a certain house in a certain neighborhood is actually this very poster. So I ate the crumb.

[DPG21920]

These laid off people can get gov't jobs. There seems to be growth in that sector.

[Latarian Milton]

u still think us a 1st world nation? the US goverment owes a mount of debts to a 3rd world country so the country is like 4th world already?

[boutons_deux]

These laid off people can get gov't jobs. There seems to be growth in that sector.

link?

public sector has decreased since 2009, while private sector has turned around and increased. The Repug states killed 100Ks of state, local jobs to maintain the jobs crisis until Nov 6.

Federally under Barry:

Government Employment Drops Under Obama, But Media Run With Romney Myth Anyway
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fred-20120529-govemployment.png

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/29/government-employment-drops-under-obama-but-med/181931

[DPG21920]

federal gov

[boutons_deux]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.
The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/economy/obama_government/index.htm

[DPG21920]

So there is growth there in that sector?

[LnGrrrR]

So there is growth there in that sector?

Well, if Congrees doesn't do anything before the Fiscal Cliff happens, there's a likely chance that the number drops off.

[DMC]

This cliff needs to happen. We need to learn a lesson about debt and spending that's not just words on a screen or a talking head. That's the only way change is really ever going to happen. You have to make it hurt.

[Wild Cobra]

link?

public sector has decreased since 2009, while private sector has turned around and increased. The Repug states killed 100Ks of state, local jobs to maintain the jobs crisis until Nov 6.

Federally under Barry:

Government Employment Drops Under Obama, But Media Run With Romney Myth Anyway
http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fred-20120529-govemployment.png

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/29/government-employment-drops-under-obama-but-med/181931
I guess when you include the US military personnel and the US Postal service, we will see a downward trend...

[CosmicCowboy]

Boutons, you are an idiot. Public sector jobs weren't cut to make Obama look bad. Federal public sector employment has continued to expand. States, however, that are obligated to balance their budgets (unlike the feds) had to cut the bloat back during the recession to balance their budgets. Amazingly, those states have managed to survive and realized they can live without those excess employees. Surprise, Surprise. Now if the Feds would just follow that model...

[boutons_deux]

"Public sector jobs weren't cut to make Obama look bad."

In Repug states where the layoffs were greatest, they were. I never give Repugs the benefit of doubt. The ALWAYS act on bad faith politics (goal was defeat Barry with a bad economy), not for the good of their people.

[boutons_deux]

Newly-Red States Account For Nearly Half Of Government Layoffs

The 11 states that went red in the 2010 midterm election alone accounted for slightly more than 40 percent of the state-level public job losses last year, according to a new paper from progressive think tank The Roosevelt Institute. Those states also lost 2.5 percent of their government workforces in a single year on average, compared to an average of 0.5 percent in all the other states.


Texas, which was already Republican in 2010, makes up an additional 31 percent of the job cuts, the paper found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/government-jobs-cuts_n_1382989.html

[Drachen]

"Public sector jobs weren't cut to make Obama look bad."

In Repug states where the layoffs were greatest, they were. I never give Repugs the benefit of doubt. The ALWAYS act on bad faith politics (goal was defeat Barry with a bad economy), not for the good of their people.

... and when you start with such a prejudicial notion, your ability for rational thought decreases immensely.

[boutons_deux]

... and when you start with such a prejudicial notion, your ability for rational thought decreases immensely.

yes, call it "political profiling" where recent bad faith faith, non-stop lying behavior, etc tells me what the suspect looks like: a Repug. An extremely effective policy. Why should I give Repugs the benefit of the doubt?

[Drachen]

yes, call it "political profiling" where recent bad faith faith, non-stop lying behavior, etc tells me what the suspect looks like: a Repug. An extremely effective policy. Why should I give Repugs the benefit of the doubt?

Just so we are straight here, every job that was cut from state governments in red states was to make obama look bad. Is this right?

[RandomGuy]

lol. I'll wait for you to ask the next guy who gets his job cut. I'm sure he'll be happy that healthcare for everybody else got cheaper. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

Fuck your "conservative confirmation biases".

Even in a healthy economy, jobs will be shed/destroyed all the time, this is normal and really a necessary part of the capitalist process, like it or not.

In this case, you have a "post hoc, propter hoc", with a little vindictiveness thrown in.

There is a distinct movement afoot, for libertarians and some Republicans to stop speaking to any friends who might have voted for Obama.

[TeyshaBlue]

In this case, you have a "post hoc, propter hoc", with a little vindictiveness thrown in.



Probably. I've had my job shot out from under me as a direct consequence of legislative activity. It was a long time ago, but it was a fucking disaster.

[RandomGuy]

Probably. I've had my job shot out from under me as a direct consequence of legislative activity. It was a long time ago, but it was a fucking disaster.

Sorry to hear that.

I do understand that it sucks to lose a job, I lost one to just such an economic adjustment when my first kid was born. Unemployed with a wife and a kid depending on you will sharpen your efforts immensely.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/GOPProjectSlashingPublicWorkforce.pdf

Tell TX parents, happy to have Perry cut their property taxes, how they should really love the 1000s of teachers fired and those huge class sizes.