uenmployment passes 10%

I blame the Democrats and the Republicans.

GO Libertarians!!!!

I am really interested to see how they can **** it up.

Gallup's take on this

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143426/gallup-finds-unemployment-september.aspx

Regardless, the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday's jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government's job release suggests.

It notes that underemployment is at 18.8 % also.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I blame the Democrats and the Republicans.

GO Libertarians!!!!

I am really interested to see how they can **** it up.

I agree. Let's give them a shot at screwing things up.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I blame the Democrats and the Republicans.

GO Libertarians!!!!

I am really interested to see how they can **** it up.

Bill Maher claims to be a libertarian.

F*^% libertarians.

(Yes I know Maher claims to be, but is far from a libertarian)

I think Librarians should have a shot :up:

but seriously, unemployment is just stupid in this country right now. I have like 7 friends who are unemployed and have been actively looking for awhile now. The economy might have gotten better for businesses, but they're not increasing their spending or hiring just yet.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I blame the Democrats and the Republicans.

GO Libertarians!!!!

I am really interested to see how they can **** it up.

Me too, they damn sure can't **** it up any worse.

"texasPHINSfan wrote:

I think Librarians should have a shot :up:

but seriously, unemployment is just stupid in this country right now. I have like 7 friends who are unemployed and have been actively looking for awhile now. The economy might have gotten better for businesses, but they're not increasing their spending or hiring just yet.

One thing for certain, until demand for products go up, unemployment likely will remain stagnant. Plus the double whammy, IMO, is that the housing mkt will be a long long time getting back up. Too many ne homes were built and the mkt crashed taking everything else down along with it.

but lately there are some good signs, the other day GE said they're bring jobs back home cuz they found out it is actually cheaper. I believer they said they're building a plant somewhere in TN, or at least refurbishing one and expanding elsewhere. This is all for durable goods, mainly appliances.
yesterday, Intel announces a 4 billion revamping plan, adding more jobs.
just today, UPS announced an 81%, yes 81, increase in 3rd qtr profits due to increased pkg volume. This is particularly good news because I've personally seen what happens when buster brown gets rolling. Hope it continues, if so, all the better.

It's too bad we don't have a President right now who would have the credibility with the entire nation to say it's the patriotic duty of American companies to hire Americans and that companies that stick their necks out to hire people will be supported by our government.

With that said,

1) Nobody who ran in 2008 can do that. Frankly, the person who was most likely to be able to do that actually won. The past two war-filled years of political fighting have destroyed any chance of it happening, though.

2) We haven't had a President since Clinton who was both popular enough and taken seriously enough by everybody to embrace that message.

3) If Obama tried this right now, he'd be met by massive opposition on the Republican front just for the sake of opposition (my very least thing about Republicans). Republicans might even suggest less hiring should be done.

4) We may have passed the point where corporations give a damn what the government says anyway. They know they can **** everything up and suck on the government teat. They're pretty fearless.

This situation sucks.

"Jimmy James wrote:

It's too bad we don't have a President right now who would have the credibility with the entire nation to say it's the patriotic duty of American companies to hire Americans and that companies that stick their necks out to hire people will be supported by our government.

With that said,

1) Nobody who ran in 2008 can do that. Frankly, the person who was most likely to be able to do that actually won. The past two war-filled years of political fighting have destroyed any chance of it happening, though.

2) We haven't had a President since Clinton who was both popular enough and taken seriously enough by everybody to embrace that message.

3) If Obama tried this right now, he'd be met by massive opposition on the Republican front just for the sake of opposition (my very least thing about Republicans). Republicans might even suggest less hiring should be done.

4) We may have passed the point where corporations give a damn what the government says anyway. They know they can **** everything up and suck on the government teat. They're pretty fearless.

This situation sucks.

I work at a company that is not hiring. We are profitable and have a lot of cash.

It has nothing to do with a lack of patriotism or a dislike of Obama. It has everything to do with exploding health care costs, tax uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty.

"Zach13 wrote:

I work at a company that is not hiring. We are profitable and have a lot of cash.

It has nothing to do with a lack of patriotism or a dislike of Obama. It has everything to do with exploding health care costs, tax uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty.

But remember that Obamacare did not cause this. Whether or not is eventually helps remains to be seen. There is a lot about it that is not good but nothing was being done otherwise.
anyway, from a year old article from Sept 2009...............

Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, the report found, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Overall, health care in the United States is expected to cost $2.6 trillion this year, or 17% of the nation's economy, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/

I agree that health care costs have put a huge crimp for companies everywhere. They used to provide 100% coverage then slowly but surely started sharing that expense with the employees until we're now where we are. We can not sustain a quadruple increase in anything over the regular inflation rate, it just will not add up for long. It is a reason companies are not hiring, sure, as if they did, it will only add to their health care costs, or they have to pass more of it back to the employees. However, if demand for their products increase, they will hire to meet that demand. They have to in order to survive. If they don't meet it, their competitors surely will and they soon will be out of business. With that said, it is a reason why I say that the lack of demand is what is keeping the economy down the most. Everything else does contribute to it also but demand, IMO,is the biggest culprit. So, if that is the case, then it seems that more $$ needs to be in the hands of the ppl who would increase demand, the average everyday folks simply because there are so many more of them than the wealthy well off folks. However, I don't really have any iron clad method to accomplish this. None that would be "guaranteed" not to backfire in some way.
"http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/09/16/health-insurance-premiums-up-131-in-last-ten-years/#ixzz136s9biKw"

"Zach13 wrote:

I work at a company that is not hiring. We are profitable and have a lot of cash.

It has nothing to do with a lack of patriotism or a dislike of Obama. It has everything to do with exploding health care costs, tax uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty.

Exploding Health Care costs aren't Obama IMO. The health care at my company shot up 20% before Obama even took office.

I have heard a lot of murmurs about tax uncertainty though, and that falls DIRECTLY in the laps of Dems. I understand that they don't want to renig on their promise to peel back tax breaks on the rich...but it aint' going to happen...and quite honestly I don't know if it SHOULD happen with the economy how it is right now.

We all KNOW that the tax breaks are needed and we all KNOW that they're all but certain to come. But the Dem's punted it until after the midterm elections so that they wouldn't face angry constituents. In the meantime business are looking down the barrel of huge taxes and they can't act until they know what's going to happen.

Typical gutless political move that hurts only the people. The Dems can go and not get questioned about why they helped the rich out, and they can point fingers at the Repubs when the tax cuts are extended.

It's this kind of stupid **** that needs to stop.

"Zach13 wrote:

I work at a company that is not hiring. We are profitable and have a lot of cash.

It has nothing to do with a lack of patriotism or a dislike of Obama. It has everything to do with exploding health care costs, tax uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty.

What I'm saying is that it would be nice to have the sort of President who could kick companies in the butt for not spending the cash on expanding employment and assure them that if they do it, we'll have their back. I don't think businesses are holding off on expanding to spite Obama or anything.

"daphins wrote:

Exploding Health Care costs aren't Obama IMO. The health care at my company shot up 20% before Obama even took office.

I have heard a lot of murmurs about tax uncertainty though, and that falls DIRECTLY in the laps of Dems. I understand that they don't want to renig on their promise to peel back tax breaks on the rich...but it aint' going to happen...and quite honestly I don't know if it SHOULD happen with the economy how it is right now.

We all KNOW that the tax breaks are needed and we all KNOW that they're all but certain to come. But the Dem's punted it until after the midterm elections so that they wouldn't face angry constituents. In the meantime business are looking down the barrel of huge taxes and they can't act until they know what's going to happen.

Typical gutless political move that hurts only the people. The Dems can go and not get questioned about why they helped the rich out, and they can point fingers at the Repubs when the tax cuts are extended.

It's this kind of stupid **** that needs to stop.

I can personally verify the bolded part as well.

Not only did the price shoot up, but the coverage also plunged.

That is, pay more and get less.

20% is higher than mine went, but it did indeed go up, and as mentioned, coverage went down.

For what its worth, pretty sure that un-employment in Texas isnt anywhere near 10%.. Not saying anything in particular...just sayin........

You have to add the population bomb and all the professionals emigrating here from other countries as well. Up here in the PNW, we have a lot of "imports" from Asia, India, and the like that specialize in the software world and take jobs from Americans. Now, I can't complain too loudly about that because in many of these cases the emigrated workers are more qualified or have a better work ethic... But the point remains that in an increasingly-competitive job market, fewer jobs are out there to be had by more and more people. Considering our own population is growing too, this is a recipe for disaster. Cost of living is much higher here than many of those developing countries that labor gets outsourced to. The companies are in business to make money, not provide jobs - so can we complain?

The problem is the government thinks increased liquidity and access to capital for businesses will solve the unemployment problem, but it won't. Companies are just more cautious to spend money now, quicker to save cash, and in some cases are looking to things like the economy to cite job cutbacks, even if unnecessary (see: NFL last year when they cut 50 jobs "due to the economy" even though the NFL is a multi-billion dollar a year enterprise.)

I don't think there is one single solution to this, but a good start might be offering tax incentives to companies for hiring local workers, or more workers? (Base the tax break off number of employees, capacity of hiring, or something along those lines). This seems like a band-aid and reeks of the failed attempts to help the US Steel Industry many moons ago, but I'm at a loss of how else to defeat that as I don't feel the government can dictate hiring or firing practices.

At the core, I don't think it's the government's job or place to tell companies who to hire and how to run themselves. At best the government can offer incentives to entice companies to operate a certain way. If there is a better way to help this than offering tax breaks, I haven't heard it.