Stop working so hard! You’re raising the unemployment rate
For months now, a close friend has been working 14-16 hour days at a boring job that pays less than she used to earn. But she was out of work for months and desperately needs the paycheck. So she works and work and works .
It turns out she’s not alone. Lots of hard-pressed workers are in that predicament, raising productivity for their employers and giving their employers reason not to hire other workers:
When workers become more efficient, it’s normally a good thing. But lately, it has acted as a powerful brake on job creation. And the question of whether the recent surge in productivity has run its course is the key to whether job growth is finally poised to take off.
One of the great surprises of the economic downturn that began 27 months ago is this: Businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.
That means high-level gains in productivity — which in the long run is the key to a higher standard of living but in the short run contributes to sky-high unemployment. So long as employers can squeeze dramatically higher output from every worker, they won’t need to hire again despite the growing economy. . .Businesses have certainly not been investing in new equipment that might enable workers to be more efficient — capital expenditures plummeted during the recession and are rebounding slowly. And the structural shifts occurring in the economy are so profound that one would expect productivity to be lower, rather than higher, as people need new training to work in parts of the economy that are growing, such as exports and the clean-energy sector.
So what’s happening? As best as anyone can guess, the crisis that began in 2007 and deepened in 2008 caused both businesses and workers to panic. Companies cut even more staff than the decrease in demand for their products would warrant. They were hoarding cash, fearful that they wouldn’t have access to capital down the road.
When demand for their products leveled off in the middle of last year, the companies could have stopped cutting jobs or even hired people back. But they didn’t — payrolls have continued declining.
Instead companies squeezed more work out of remaining employees, accounting for a 3.8 percent boost in worker productivity in 2009, the best in seven years. Which raises the question: Why couldn’t companies have achieved those gains back when the economy was in better shape? The answer to that may lie on the other side of the equation — employees.
Workers were in a panic of their own in 2009. Fearful of losing their jobs, people seem to have become more willing to stretch themselves to the limit to get more done in any given hour of work. And they have been tolerant of furloughs and cutbacks in hours, which in better times would drive them to find a new employer. This has given companies the leeway to cut back without the fear of losing valuable employees for good.
.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
145 comments Add your comment
rdh
March 31st, 2010
12:46 pm
Count me as one of those working 12 hours a day (60 hours a week at a 40 hour a week job) for fear of losing my job. I was out of work for 9 months last year. My debt is high, my savings are gone. If I lose this job, I will lose my house. If I don’t work 12 hour days, there are 5 others in line for my position. It is what it is.
I’d like to go home at 8 hours, but that is a dream for a better economy.
blutto
March 31st, 2010
12:46 pm
“That means high-level gains in productivity … in the short run contributes to sky-high unemployment.”
Hogwash. The productivity gains of the 80’s and 90’s were accompanied by low unemployment. To blame the current extended period of high unemployment on increased productivity is equivalent to blaming high food prices on increased agricultural productivity.
Jack
March 31st, 2010
12:51 pm
Tucker’s friend should start her own business & stop complaining about her job.
bajaboy
March 31st, 2010
12:59 pm
In 1907, 15 year old Mae West made $115 a week dancing in Vaudeville. Those were the days!
Angry Suitor -
Why can’t you stay here – - -like the rest of us!
Mae West -
Because I ain’t like the rest of ya’s
Jethro
March 31st, 2010
1:00 pm
Hogwash on your hogwash. My company laid off 20% of it’s workforce, cut my pay, benefits, and insurance, which I understood at the time and my “part. Two years later, my work load and hours spent to accomplish that workload has increased 45%, i’m doing 10-12 hrs/day, no raise, no benefits, and my company’s profit margin experienced a record increase. They’ve announced that wages/benefits will remain frozen, there are no plans to hire any time soon, but they are “confident that the tremendous output from you (the employee) will ensure yet another record in manufacturing productivity and profitability.”
Business has no interest in employment numbers. It’s not their problem. Make it fast, make it cheap, and if you can’t, they’ll hire someone who will. Because they’re out there. I tell you, this recession was the best thing to happen to business – from a management standpoint – in decades.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
March 31st, 2010
1:06 pm
Well, tell Tucker I’m doing my part to get people back to work. I got to admit it, I goof off every chance I get. When I’m close to a wireless area, I park the truck and blog awhile. But these people that are working so hard for so many hours are about to ruin it for the rest of us. If they don’t stop it, the boss down at the warehouse is liable to lay a couple drivers off and shift their work to the rest of us. You can’t hardly blog much if you’re having to spend all your time hauling beer into stores and bars.
So I’m saying to all you people working 10 and 12 hr. days, stop it. Get fired if you have to. It ain’t no skin off of me if you get canned and loose your house. But it would sure put a hurt on me if I wound up with 10 or 12 more places to haul beer to.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Cosby Smith
March 31st, 2010
1:07 pm
Somebody has to work to pay the taxes of those 50% who do not. and if you do not like the hours in the private sector, go to work with the Government, they are paid considerbly higher than those in the private sector and only work a minimum of 8 hours a day plus every holiday the government can think of. The next time you see your congressman, thanks himn / her for your problem.
Betsy
March 31st, 2010
1:08 pm
You need to consider how much is employer, not employee, driven. An employer may expect a employee to work those hours. Or, if the employee slacks off, it doesn’t mean the employer will run out and hire someone else. The employee either works what the employer wants or may not have a job, then there is simply an even exchange, one unemployed person for another. Everything is not that simplistic; don’t try to make the unemployment rate the fault of those who work hard at the jobs they have. (”Yeah, let me work 4 more hours everyday and not have time to spend with my husband and children or other activities or have more time to myself, and let’s see how many poor unemployed people I can keep from working.”)
Jess
March 31st, 2010
1:09 pm
This shows just how out of touch liberals are with the real world. Unfortunately Obama and his band of academics and lawyers have not been able to do any better. Would it kill him to have one person in his cabinet who had actually worked in an environment where private sector jobs are created?
Jobs will be created when businesses feel confident they know what’s going to happen with this economy. At this point there are so many unknowns just in legislation and taxes they are in a hold pattern.
Ivan
March 31st, 2010
1:10 pm
/headdesk
Beaves
March 31st, 2010
1:10 pm
Even more hogwash, I am a middle class working American and Obozo care is already raising my taxes. Now that my company can’t right off the money they pay for my healthcare, they will be adding onto my base salary and taxing it. Now my company can’t right that off so their bottom line just got higher, which means it will not be hiring soon, due to Obozo care. Why does Obozo care not like my medical spending account, they are removing that also, so how come a middle class family making under 100k going to be paying more taxes, just one more Obozo lie. It seems like the liberals just don’t understand what a lie is, as long as a liberal is saying it…
Brakeman
March 31st, 2010
1:11 pm
Ms. Tucker:
Why did you post this? It has nothing to do with race that I can see.
Mickey
March 31st, 2010
1:11 pm
Be nice if Cyn actually knew something about economics and less about her liberal ideology.
AT
March 31st, 2010
1:13 pm
The purpose of a business is not to hire people, it’s to make money. According to this article, productivity went down 3% when the number of hours went down 10%. That proves that there were people that the businesses didn’t need. Unprofitable “work”. This article only makes sense to someone who thinks that people “deserve” jobs.
Vinny
March 31st, 2010
1:15 pm
Leave it to Cynthia to encourage people to be less productive.
My gosh, why the AJC keeps paying you for this dribble is beyond me.
DeKalb Conservative
March 31st, 2010
1:16 pm
Couldn’t some of this also be that the dead weight of companies has been removed?
kayaker 71
March 31st, 2010
1:19 pm
“No new taxes on those who make less than 250K/yr…… not one thin dime”.
DeKalb Conservative
March 31st, 2010
1:21 pm
In a sick way I am enjoying the unemployment rate because it has made morning / evening traffic much smoother.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
1:24 pm
As government piles on additional costs and unfunded mandates, companies will have to find ways to reduce expenses. In a service economy that has only one meaning.
In a rational world, government would not add $1 trillion dollars to Federal spending – with assuredly no increase in deficit, meaning new taxation will cover the spending – in an area where most people are broadly satisfied, one where mere tweaks would suffice.
DeKalb Conservative
March 31st, 2010
1:26 pm
@ Ragnar
Can you the outcry on the left if Rearden metal ever becomes a reality?
joe taxpayer
March 31st, 2010
1:30 pm
productivity does not increase unenployment nor does working more hours mean that you are more productive
kayaker 71
March 31st, 2010
1:32 pm
Now it appears that “Drill, baby, drill” is a good thing. How does Bozo come up with these revelations? Seems like a guy named Bush had the same ideas but was demonized beyond belief for suggesting that we drill off the coastal US, especially in Florida. We’ll see how Florida accepts Bozo’s latest “Prolamation for the Good of America” sometime in November.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
1:33 pm
Dear DeKalb Conservative @ 1:26, ha, that is perhaps the only element missing from today’s real world.
DawgDad
March 31st, 2010
1:33 pm
The premise of this argument is false; the argument itself is specious. Should we have armies of telephone operators? Trolley conducters? Coachmen?
Are there fewer people in IT today than 20 years ago? Fewer in manufacturing? — NO! There are armies of these people here and abroad. For one, the major corporation I work for is growing its IT department by leaps and bounds.
If you are not maximizing deployment of available resources you open yourself and your business up for someone else to capture the opportunity. The market is not 100% efficient in this regard, but it’s pretty darn good overall. Government on the other hand is almost totally inefficient in deploying resources; not subject to the same market forces.
The fact that we have idle and underutilized hands today is not a symptom of increased productivity. The universe of possibility is not finite. Would we be better off employing people to be inefficient and non-productive? In the very finite short-run some people would be better off. Beyond that, the system would be unstable and unsustainable.
Get a life, people, and shake off the indoctrination. This is all rooted in common sense.
Joel
March 31st, 2010
1:34 pm
Maybe, just maybe, the employers have gotten rid of the lazy employees. Now they have the ones that are there to actually do work.
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
1:38 pm
I actually think there is something to the article Cynthia quotes. At my own company we were specifically told “The 40 hour workweek is a thing of the past.” The basic message is that we need to work more hours and that message is continually, subtly reinforced…”We’re lucky to have jobs” and “You can always be replaced.” Companies are using fear of losing a job in a bad economy as a way to squeeze more out of their existing workers.
My division was even promised by the CEO that if we made our numbers for last year then they’d hire people to re-invest in the business. We surpassed our numbers, the company is selling more of the products so volumne as increased, and not a single new body…we’re told NO NEW HIRES! When I asked about the promise of bodies for making numbers at a company meeting I was quickly brushed off and the topic changed. I’m surprised I still have a job because I was advised for future reference that “team players don’t ask questions that put the CEO on the spot like that.”
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
1:43 pm
“Leave it to Cynthia to encourage people to be less productive.” Do you even understand what productivity means? Working more hours does not make one more productive. It just means you work more hours. Increasing productivity really means increasing a worker’s efficiency so that they can do more work in the same amount of time. These rises in productivity are false data because they are simply measuring volume of output by X number of workers. If you take the number of hours into consideration then the gains are pretty much wiped out. I’ll bet the numbers would be signifantly different if the figure measured volume of output by hours worked.
blutto
March 31st, 2010
1:45 pm
To believe the basis of this article is to believe that the industrial revolution, the harnessing of electricity and the amazing advances in semi-conductor technology–all of which increased productivity enormously and resulted in more jobs with higher pay–should have caused , in CT’s words, “sky-high unemployment.”
It is the kind of victim speak that bemoaned the loss of all those farrier and telephone operator jobs while overlooking the jobs and productivity that the automobile and advanced telephone technology brought us.
Joel
March 31st, 2010
1:59 pm
40 hour work weeks are for the lazy people!
Stanley
March 31st, 2010
2:00 pm
We have the head of the RNC going to voyeur clubs, we have the Dems trying to get another national holiday, we also having the Dems rounding up CEOs of major companies to argue why they are taking charge offs- I suppose Waxman will over ride the SEC and berate the CEOs for hurting their stock price by taking said write offs. The American worker is great- it just needs the powers to be to get their heads out of their……….. steak and merlot (or bustiers if your Michael Steele)
blutto
March 31st, 2010
2:04 pm
Jethro:
While your situation is painful, layoffs and cutbacks are not unique to the current economy or to your company. The fact that your company experienced “a record increase” in profit margins indicates that it is doing something right, even as many others fail.
The uncertainty caused by the current administration (”we know best and someday we’ll tell you what that is and how much in new taxes it is going to cost you”) is at least partially to blame for the unwillingness of business to take on new workers.
I wish you well.
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
2:05 pm
To believe the basis of this article is to believe that the industrial revolution, the harnessing of electricity and the amazing advances in semi-conductor technology–all of which increased productivity enormously and resulted in more jobs with higher pay–should have caused , in CT’s words, “sky-high unemployment.”
What the industrial revolution did was to allow the each worker to produce MORE in a static amount of time…that is true productivity. Since goods could be produced faster that made them cheaper so demand increased which lead to needing more workers…etc.
If you have 5 workers putting in 40 hours a week to produce 100 widgets, then fire one worker, and expect the remaining 4 to work 50 hours each week to produce the same 100 widgets then you haven’t honestly increased productivity. In press releases and studies you could claim that productivity has increased because now you have 4 workers producing 100 widgets instead of 5, but it still takes 200 hours to make 100 widgets.
If the number of hours worked to produce a quantity of good/services was divided by 40 (which is considered 1 full time person) to determine the true number of man hours worked that would tell us how many employees it should take to produce X quantity of goods/services. Then if we compare that number to the actual number of workers I’m betting the farm that the number of employed people is lower than the number it should take to do the work….thus leading to slower recovery and the ability to claim increases in productivity.
Ever notice that productivity figures are always a measure of “Per worker”? Ever notice some of those studies that document that the number of hours Americans work is increasing? Do you not see a possible correlation between the two?
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
2:09 pm
Well, I for one have read this before and know Ms. T is correct.
Not to mention I’m working like a one legged man at a butt kicking
contest, lotsa hours…..but we are getting close to hiring….
While I’d like to slow down or work fewer hours, I really like my job, my employer and my co-workers. As a group we have managed to keep 40
fine folks working and insured since the start of this mess. We are proud of what we have accomplished. We are all truly invested in this little company….
AND…my side business is coming into it’s busy season.
Not To Worry
March 31st, 2010
2:12 pm
In November when we vote the Obama Zombies out of office, we can then start chilling all of this interefernce and overeach by Mommy Government that the left loves so much. Business can then settle down and do what it does best …… create jobs and produce. Then Barry can do what he does best … give speeches (assuming of course that his teleprompter is working properly).
Reality
March 31st, 2010
2:23 pm
ctucker is right. During times like these, employers are pushing and pushing to get more and more out of the employees to save money. And, the employees are willing to allow themselves to work more and more hours and to work harder and harder just to keep their job.
Gee, I wonder if that is how labor unions started to begin with?
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
2:25 pm
Reality
That’s what my grandad and dad have said……
Dan
March 31st, 2010
2:26 pm
Or the reality is many of those workers who lost their jobs, weren’t doing a whole lot. Many economists and business analysts opine that on average most companies could cut 5-10% of their workforce without missing a beat. Have you ever worked in a place that didn’t have a couple of slackers around?
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
2:26 pm
Joel
I can’t agree that 4o hour weeks are for lazy people.
I think forty hour weeks are great for families.
(I haven’t had one in years tho….)
blutto
March 31st, 2010
2:27 pm
NetBanker,
Sorry but I think that you just tied yourself in a knot. While I agree with your statement concerning the industrial revolution, I am not sure that you want to “bet the farm” on subsequent paragraphs that make the claim that “the number of employed people is lower than the number it should take to do the work.”
If the work is getting done with “the number of employed people” then theories or wild guesses as to “the number it should take to do the work” are meaningless.
citizen
March 31st, 2010
2:30 pm
Jack @12:51..I was thinking the same thing. Why wait for someone else to create a job for you to apply for. Be inovative and create a need for your expertise and YOU will create the job. Geez!
left wing
March 31st, 2010
2:31 pm
Ragnar @ 1:24 My friend, you’re wrong as usual. This has been going on for the past several years (even going back into the pro-business Bush administration). Businesses try to maximize their profits by “wringing” every last productive hour out of their employees. Which, by the way, is why I stopped and am now a consultant. I got tired of corporations trying to work me for 60 hours and pay me 40. Now, I get paid by the hour and am willing to stay for as long as they’re willing to pay me.
Unfortunately, we both know that most people don’t have that kind of leverage. Most middle class & lower income people are at the mercy of whatever business wants to do with them.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
2:34 pm
Gee, I wonder if that is how labor unions started to begin with? – Reality Actually, it is. It used to be that corporations would work people for 14 hours/day in substandard/hazerdous working conditions. What did the company care as long as you did your job? This is exactly why people got together and collectively they had the power to “force” better pay, better working conditions, et al.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
2:38 pm
Dear Leftwing @ 2:31, thanks for your note, but I don’t know what in my 1:24 note you are addressing. I regret that I am unable to respond.
Mickey
March 31st, 2010
2:39 pm
Is economic illiteracy a requirement for all liberals or just Tucker’s unique affliction?
left wing
March 31st, 2010
2:40 pm
Dan @ 2:26 I guarrantee you that if someone is employed at a given company, it’s because the company thinks it’s making money (getting value received) from that person. Said the other way, if a company feels that a person isn’t being productive enough (working hard enough to justify their salary) the company will get rid of that person as soon as it can. Why would the company keep them? Loyalty? Don’t make me laugh. Companies are as loyal to their employees as Tiger Woods was to his wife.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
2:41 pm
Ragnar I was referring to your comment As government piles on additional costs and unfunded mandates, companies will have to find ways to reduce expenses. In a service economy that has only one meaning.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
2:42 pm
Mickey, would you mind telling me what, specifically, you find economically illiterate?
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
2:43 pm
s, You clearly don’t read many blogs and don’t understand the medium. I can do something about your dissatisfaction — invite you to go somewhere else.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
2:43 pm
Mickey I got my undergraduate in Economics from the University of Missouri years before I became a liberal. I actually voted for Nixon and Reagan twice (the second time was a mistake). But it’s nice to have.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
2:48 pm
Dear leftwing @ 2:41, we agree that businesses optimize use of all resources, but in a steady state there is no pressure to make serious changes. When government reduces financial and regulatory burdens, companies are free to use their resources to attempt to expand markets. When government increases financial and regulatory burdens, companies are constrained to forego potential gains and instead focus their efforts on reducing outlays. From 2001 – 2007, we were in the former mode; since 2007 we are in the latter.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
2:49 pm
And, dear left wing, the reason I knew this and you did not is that I took my Econ degree at Vanderbilt.
Joel
March 31st, 2010
2:52 pm
Granny, I think providing for a family is great for the family. Not too many people can do that in a 40 hour week.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
2:53 pm
Dan, That’s spoken with the certainty of someone who has never been laid off.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
2:53 pm
Not To Worry, Are you saying that businesses produced jobs under Bush?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
2:56 pm
Dear Ms. Tucker @ 2:53, you make a fundamental economic error. The massive job growth during the years of republican dominance had nothing to do with “Bush” and everything to do with the absence of government interference. The increased activity of the government certainly has diminished the employment market since the democrats took Congress in November 2006.
Joel
March 31st, 2010
2:57 pm
Not to worry, I thought Obama was best at wiping his hind end with the Constitution?
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
2:57 pm
Joel
You’re right.
It’s sad that a fair weeks wage won’t support a small family any longer.
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
2:58 pm
Joel
Your comment 2:57 really is beneath you.
Or it should be.
ATLshirt.com
March 31st, 2010
2:59 pm
Under Bush, I had plenty of Job Offers, under Obama, 0!!
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
2:59 pm
Blutto…the point is that all employment laws and wages are based on a 40 hour work week which translates to a single worker. Productivity is currently calculated on physical bodies doing the work not the number of hours worked divied by 40 to determine how many workers that really equates to.
If you refer back to my example of the 100 widgets it takes 200 hours to produce 100 widgets. They had 5 workers putting in 40 hours each, but the company cut a worker and is still getting 200 hours of work out of 4 people by making them work longer. Then they are claiming that productivity is up because they are now producing 100 widgets with 4 people instead of 5 people. Productivity has NOT increased becaused it takes the same amount of time to produce the goods. Employment or unemployment is affected by working longer because in order to comply with the 40 hour week on which our wages are based the company should have 5 workers.
Sam
March 31st, 2010
3:02 pm
The good news is that in a company of 200 employees, we have 1 CEO, 198 VPs and a Janitor. I feel so important now even though my kids all call me Mister!
Joel
March 31st, 2010
3:03 pm
Granny,
Is 40 hours really a fair weeks work? I ve never known anyone to get ahead doing the bare essentials. Just doesnt happen.
Sam
March 31st, 2010
3:06 pm
I am actually getting layed off. I am highly skilled and very productive but unfortunately I am represented by a union. Because I have the least seniority, I will get cut before the slackers – and there are a lot of them here.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:06 pm
ATLshirt, You’re a rare case then, esp in the last of the Bush years. Many economists refer to the period from 1999 to 2008 as the lost decade since net job creation amounted to zero.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:08 pm
Ragnar, Even Alan Greenspan, who once sat at Ayn Rand’s feet (literally), no longers believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes that the economy would have been better off with more regulation of the banks. We wouldn’t have had the massive financial crisis we’re still trying to recover from.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
3:08 pm
Ragnar The massive job growth during the years of republican dominance had nothing to do with “Bush” and everything to do with the absence of government interference. What growth are you talking about? Under the 1st term of Bush (and with 2 large tax cuts, by the way) we almost ended up with negative job creation. It wasn’t until 2006 that there was any significant numbers of jobs created under “republican dominance”.
Stanley
March 31st, 2010
3:10 pm
Funny- when it comes to political donations, businesses are not “people” and should not be allowed. When it comes to employment all of sudden businesses are “people” who are mean spirited who are he%l bent to pillage its employees. Kind of love the employee hate the employer model.
dave
March 31st, 2010
3:11 pm
CT – We’d have much better off if the government hadn’t made the banks loan money who couldn’t pay it back. The bottom line is businesses will not hire new people until they know what it will do to their bottom line and so far it isn’t looking too good.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
3:12 pm
Aarrgghhh. I replied to Ragnar but the post vanished into the ether. I’m not reposting all of it. I did say “ouch” to your Vandy comment, and said that spending all that money there made you evolve into your defense of big business. The actual argument, I’m going to let go.
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
3:12 pm
Joel
It has been since 1936.
I’ve not only known folks who have managed to get ahead on 40 hours,
but also folks who on those hours owned modest homes, small cars AND had a stay at home parent.
It does happen.
Basic cable, no land lines, brown bag lunches, hand me downs and consignment shops, lotsa’ pot roast and chicken…..
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
3:15 pm
Joel…I would say that 40 hours is fair week’s work. I completely agree that you don’t get ahead doing that, but not everyone is trying to get ahead or advance a career. What has changed is that while go-getters who worked more than 40 hours a week stood out the expectation of companies today is that everyone works more than 40 hours. They’ve raised the bar on expected hours to work while maintaining the 40 hour work week from a wage perspective (i.e. your wage, sick time, vacation time is based on 40 hours).
What is frustrating for many (myself included) is the expectation to work more hours for the same pay. Even go-getters are pinched because however many hours you worked before that is suddenly the new minimum and there is intense pressure to ‘dig a little deeper’ and ‘be a team player’ by giving just 5 more hours a week…which is how I’m suddenly at over 50 hours a week even as others are only working 45 hours a week. Company is happy, but people are burning out because the 5 extra hours the company gets is 5 people lose with their spouse, the kids, the dog, running errands, doing chores, keeping one’s personal life running smoothly.
Grumpy
March 31st, 2010
3:16 pm
Sounds like people were slacking off during the dot.com 90’s and housing bubble 00’s. Now it’s catching up to them. Boo hoo.
Beaves
March 31st, 2010
3:17 pm
I think all you liberals who think being lazy will enhance their job performance should put it to the test. Don’t worry be lazy…. No worries Obozo will kick you when you are down, unemployed, off to prison for not having health insurance. Remember it is mandatory, lack of work is no excuse.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:18 pm
dave, That simply didn’t happen. There is absolutely NO LAW that made any banks lend money to people who couldn’t pay it back. I know that’s a shop-worn meme on the right. But it simply didn’t happen. If you mean the Community Responsibility Act, it passed in the 1970s. The bank crisis took place in 2008. Secondly, banks operating under the CRA have the LOWEST default rates on loans. Sorry, it just ain’t so.
buckshotannie
March 31st, 2010
3:18 pm
I just wish all these people who are so condemning of the unemployed or laid off experience firsthand what happens to a person’s life, soul, mind and body when they are laid off. Yes, some people should have lost their jobs but lots of hardworking, good folks also lost their jobs just because they were the last one hired so first one let when times got tough. And you people who say, well go sell yourself and start your own business—how will you do that when you can’t even pay your mortgage? Who’s going to lend you start up capital when you empty your savings to pay your living expenses and medical bills (COBRA isn’t free and no health insurance pays for everything). It’s really easy when you have a great job and good benefits to tell people who have lost everything how they should live. Walk a real mile in their shoes first. Be like the Grinch and let your heart grow a little bigger. Honestly some of you are just plain hateful. Did your mamas not love you?
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:18 pm
Sam, I’m sorry to hear that.
ATLshirt.com
March 31st, 2010
3:21 pm
Cynthia, It is all about Job Skills… if you have them, then the jobs will come.. But then again, I am an Independant Contractor in the construction industry, I did the expansion at the America’s Mart downtown.. but, the construction industry has fallen and will probably never get up again… and since I am a jack of ALL trades, thank god for my internet business or else, I would be homeless and broke right now!
Beaves
March 31st, 2010
3:25 pm
Ctucker, better check your numbers again, Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae where the ones buying up all the CRA loans. So if the people did not default, why did Freddy and Fanny go down? Liberal math is not real math.
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
3:26 pm
Dave…that didn’t actually happen. The CRA simply said it’s illegal to redline an area. It required banks to judge each loan on it’s own merits. The government never forced banks to do no doc or limited doc loans. Much of the mortgage fiasco is related to the investment banks creating derivatives out of traditional mortgage backed securities. These new instruments were unregulated and created intensive demand in the markets for more mortgages. Banks willingly complied because they were making money hand over fist. Banks did this to themselves. I know because banks are my clients and interestingly most of your community and regional banks didn’t take hits from the mortgage crisis because they hold their own mortgage paper so they weren’t lured into the profits game by derivatives hawkers.
ATLshirt.com
March 31st, 2010
3:29 pm
that is correct NetBanker…
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:35 pm
rateboy, you are obviously unfamiliar with blogs. But since you’re so unhappy with this one, I can help you — by inviting you to go elsewhere.
blutto
March 31st, 2010
3:36 pm
NetBanker @3:15–”They’ve raised the bar on expected hours to work while maintaining the 40 hour work week from a wage perspective (i.e. your wage, sick time, vacation time is based on 40 hours).”
Surely you are not saying that workers other than executives, administrators, certain professionals and outside sales folk are having to work more than 40 hours for 40 hours of pay. Are you?
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:37 pm
buckshotannie, there are a lot of smug folks on this site, aren’t there?
I Report/You Decide
March 31st, 2010
3:43 pm
Cynthia, wouldn’t it be more fun to have a blog about the racial discrimination suit currently going on in Dekalb County? I’m thinking you’d get a lot of hits on that one.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
3:45 pm
Dear Cynthia @ 3:08, now you embrace the usual leftist “cult” theory of argument – because an eminence says “x” therefore all people on his team must embrace the argument. That does not work with conservatives generally, nor with libertarian-conservatives specifically (notice the small “l”.) On the other hand, if you have an argument based on either fact or principle, I will address. To the one assertion in your statement, Mr. Greenspan is wrong about a need for more regulation of banks.
Dear leftwing @ 3:08, by “almost” you mean the Bush tax cuts successfully reversed the downward spiral from the end of the Clinton administration, and otherwise overcame the wild spending on the Kennedy education bill and the Daschle agricultural bill?
I Report/You Decide
March 31st, 2010
3:45 pm
Of course, the Dekalb County sutuation goes against conventional liberal wisdom, i.e. that all racists and/or racist behavior exists among white Republicans, but I still think it might ba a great blog topic. Some liberals might even learn something.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
3:46 pm
Dear leftwing @ 3:12, I yield to your sense of humor, my compliments.
ATLshirt.com
March 31st, 2010
3:46 pm
I will say that Obama has done one thing correctly… he reversed the ban on offshore drilling which in about 10 years, gas prices will only be around $3.00 a gallon instead of $15.00
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:47 pm
I Report/You Decide, there is nothing about DeKalb that goes against my conventional wisdom. I’ve written on that subject many times.
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
3:48 pm
Blutto…I am most certainly saying that non-hourly workers are expected to work more than 40 hours when their legal wages and time off are based on a 40 hour week. There are more salaried employees than hourly these days because of the way jobs are being classified.
I’m not saying those classifications are correct or done correctly.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
3:48 pm
Ragnar, Just guessing you and Greenspan were both big Ayn Rand fans
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
3:50 pm
Dear Ms. Tucker @ 3:18, “The effect that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) on the housing is one of the touchier questions in the financial crisis debate. The act was designed to encourage more minority lending, and though it doesn’t require banks to lend out to shaky borrowers, banks make certain CRA commitments in order to get regulatory approval for acquisitions.
A possible effect of this is that banks wishing to grow via acquisition end up with an outsize volume of these commitments.
So what’s the effect at national banking giant Bank of America (BAC).
On the company’s conference call, CFO Joe Price said the CRA book accounts for 7% of the total in residential mortgages, but 24% of the losses.
That alone doesn’t put all the problem on the CRA’ shoulders, but obviously the losses in this portfolio are way out of proportion.” http://www.businessinsider.com/okay-maybe-the-community-reinvestment-act-is-a-problem-2009-4
The Tar and Feathers Party
March 31st, 2010
3:51 pm
Uh, rdh, you work 12 hour days, yet find time to blog on the internet? Your story sounds fishy. I hope you are not blogging from work, that is stealing from your employer, an offense for which termination is justified.
Dave
March 31st, 2010
3:54 pm
I say Congress pass a law capping the work week to 35 hours. That way, the companies that are pushing their employees to work 50+ hours a week will have to hire more workers to do the work, thereby reducing unemployment. Then they should pass a law which makes it virtually impossible to fire anyone. That’s what they have in France and look how well that’s working for their unemployment rates…
oh wait, they didn’t help at all.
The Tar and Feathers Party
March 31st, 2010
3:57 pm
My wife is salaried, and works in excess of 50 hours per week. She even went to her office for 4 hours on Sunday. I told her to work eight hour days, and take her lunch break, go for a walk. She fails to follow my advice, gains weight, loses fitness, and no one but her employer benefits. Why do women feel they must complete the job, no matter how unreasonable? Work your alloted time, fail at something, and management will have to provide more workers. It is women in the workforce who are causing the problems, seeking to prove themselves. No one cares, just do the parts of the job you can in the alloted time, and go home.
scott
March 31st, 2010
3:58 pm
Atlshirt.com….the funny thing about lifting this ban…Where is the massive outcry towards him from the libs? When Bush eve suggested doing it, all you heard/read was sniping comments from the left…obama included. I am curious why he would change his course too. Could it be that he is finally receiving some sort of press about the price of gas hovering around the $3 mark???? Again, under Bush, he was badgered by everybody about the price of gas, obama included. Hmmmmm….. The media has ZERO accountability. Probably because they take their marching orders from dems themselves.
Chris Broe
March 31st, 2010
3:58 pm
Cynthia, it’s a little unfair to cite that net job growth durring the Bush era was zero. The job growth from 2003-2007 was stellar. 2005 was my best year ever. Ever. People were spending.
If we’re going to fault Bush for ruining the economy, then we have to give him responsibility for the job growth he did achieve. If you have an explanation as to why all those jobs disappeared, then please edify us. I can’t find two people that agree on what happened. (Plus I have trouble understanding economic terms). It’s like trying to find two Christians who view the gospels the same way.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
4:00 pm
Chris, I didn’t fault Bush for “ruining” the economy. It takes more than a president to do that. But his tenure was an era of tax cuts and little government regulation — two things that are supposed to lead to growth. They didn’t
left wing
March 31st, 2010
4:06 pm
Ragnar @ 3:45 My friend, surely you realize that the mild recession from the end of the Clinton era ended around November 2001. By ‘almost’ I meant that even with a recession having ended 1 year into his presidency, and with a giveaway to rich folks (apparently like yourself which can afford private schools) of 2 massive tax cuts, Bush did not have a net positive job creation number until about March 2004. You know that as well as I.
I do feel sorry for Cynthia; she has the “I bang drum with stick” crowd she’s obligated to respond to. I much prefer dealing with someone educated (regardless of how much it cost you).
We’ll never convince the other. You want government to get out of the way of business and I want government to protect me from business. But I do enjoy the discussion.
scott
March 31st, 2010
4:09 pm
This article proves what we have been saying all along. The Stimulus did NOTHING and will continue to do NOTHING. I have said this from the beginning. Contrary to what this article suggested, companies ARE making Capex investment. They are just not making major CAPEX investment into machines that will add more jobs…Rather, they are taking whatever minimal amount of CAPEX they may have and plowing it into things that will improve throughputs and efficiencies of existing equipment. They are merely trying to get their workers to produce more parts with the same amount of effort. Because of the costs this Admin and this Congress is forcing business to pay through the recent legislation, businesses will continue to avoid hiring additional labor and the larger fringe bennies associated with the legislation. Instead, they will stop short-houring current personnel and cover demand spikes with overtime. This just proves that the stimulus was nothing but a way to pay back the unions for their support(look at the money flow) and increase the number of people that need to leach off the government.
Reality, this is not how unions formed. Do some damn research before making stupid comments. The conditions and wages workers are experiencing are nowhere’s near where they were when unions started. Back then, there was no Dept of Labor or OSHA to enforce safe work practices….unions pretty much did those functions. Now, we have those agencies and unions are pretty much around to protect the bad apples.
blutto
March 31st, 2010
4:10 pm
NetBanker–
Salaried employees (like the ones I mentioned) are just that–salaried. They may work more or less than 40 hours per week but the salary is what they get. That some or even most salaried workers may work extended hours is nothing new. They are free to look elsewhere, to seek a raise or to find a wage paying job if the long hours are not worth the salary.
Hourly workers on the other hand are covered under the FLSA under which they are entitled by law to the minimum wage and overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week.
Some reminders for CT....
March 31st, 2010
4:11 pm
It’s the Community Reinvestment Act, not the Community Responsibility Act. Funny you substituted the term ‘responsibility’, since you don’t substitute anything else you write about with that word.
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
4:11 pm
Ah, Scott, I see you’ve gotten all worked up. But you do know the bottom fell out of the economy and the recession started before Obama was even elected?
left wing
March 31st, 2010
4:11 pm
Ragnar @3:50 the CRA didn’t allow borrowing with “no money down” or loans at 120% of the value of the home. I agree that it did give lenders “leeway” regarding qualifying the homebuyers ability to repay. However, essentially what you’re arguing is that the CRA which helped loosen the regulations was a bad thing. Which Cynthia and I completely agree with you on. I’m glad you’ve come over to the light, my friend.
casual observer
March 31st, 2010
4:12 pm
The current administration has done nothing for the American (private sector) worker. ZERO!! The trillion dollars of taxpayer money they borrowed has hurt more than it has helped. The Bills they have shoved down the American public’s throat does nothing for the economy. ZERO!! As a matter of fact it hurts the already strapped American Taxpayer. This Administration has run up the national debt in the future so high it can not be sustained. Millions and millions of jobs have been lost since January 2009. Tax revenue is down 30% however, government spending is going through the roof. What is going on?? If you think this is good you need to turn yourself in to the Nut House. I truly believe the object is to crumble our once proud country. GD America GD America is ringing true. And some people buy in?? SAD
ctucker
March 31st, 2010
4:12 pm
Tar and feathers, one more thing to blame women for?
scott
March 31st, 2010
4:13 pm
ctucker, we were doing great until the Dems took Congress. Look at job numbers over the last 20 years and see what happens every time COngress changes from Dem to Rep and vice-versa. It is nearly a direct relationship…Dems take over, jobs drop….Reps take over, jobs go up.
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
4:19 pm
scott
you made that up!
because you have it exactly backwards.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
4:21 pm
scott so according to your argument, while the republicans were in charge from 1994 thru 2006, there should have been strong job growth. It seems there was that massive slump from around 2000 thru the end of 2003. Kinda blows your argument, doesn’t it?
blutto
March 31st, 2010
4:21 pm
left wing @4:06: “… I want government to protect me from business.”
And that is the very essence of today’s liberalism. Surrender liberty in exchange for a big nanny state. No thank you.
Stanley
March 31st, 2010
4:23 pm
Interesting again as we now have bloggers feeling sorry for CT having to get paid to run a blog? Maybe I missed everyone at the last mensa meeting. To assign a strong correlation of economic booms and busts is rather silly. There is too much noise and too variables in a dynamic economy over a 4 or 8 year period. We elect the gov’t to (hopefully) smartly adjust the recipe of govt regulation with private capital. The main driver of the US economy is human capital- not the the 7th CEO of a company founded 125 years ago- nor is it anyone in DC.
scott
March 31st, 2010
4:29 pm
Granny (AKA Dan Rather-Biden), I saw a graph that showed it a little while ago using jobs data from the DoL. I will try to find it. But hey, unlike you, I don’t fabricate my own stories.
Dave
March 31st, 2010
4:29 pm
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec,Annual,
1990,5.4,5.3,5.2,5.4,5.4,5.2,5.5,5.7,5.9,5.9,6.2,6.3,
1991,6.4,6.6,6.8,6.7,6.9,6.9,6.8,6.9,6.9,7.0,7.0,7.3,
1992,7.3,7.4,7.4,7.4,7.6,7.8,7.7,7.6,7.6,7.3,7.4,7.4,
1993,7.3,7.1,7.0,7.1,7.1,7.0,6.9,6.8,6.7,6.8,6.6,6.5,
1994,6.6,6.6,6.5,6.4,6.1,6.1,6.1,6.0,5.9,5.8,5.6,5.5,
1995,5.6,5.4,5.4,5.8,5.6,5.6,5.7,5.7,5.6,5.5,5.6,5.6,
1996,5.6,5.5,5.5,5.6,5.6,5.3,5.5,5.1,5.2,5.2,5.4,5.4,
1997,5.3,5.2,5.2,5.1,4.9,5.0,4.9,4.8,4.9,4.7,4.6,4.7,
1998,4.6,4.6,4.7,4.3,4.4,4.5,4.5,4.5,4.6,4.5,4.4,4.4,
1999,4.3,4.4,4.2,4.3,4.2,4.3,4.3,4.2,4.2,4.1,4.1,4.0,
2000,4.0,4.1,4.0,3.8,4.0,4.0,4.0,4.1,3.9,3.9,3.9,3.9,
2001,4.2,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.3,4.5,4.6,4.9,5.0,5.3,5.5,5.7,
2002,5.7,5.7,5.7,5.9,5.8,5.8,5.8,5.7,5.7,5.7,5.9,6.0,
2003,5.8,5.9,5.9,6.0,6.1,6.3,6.2,6.1,6.1,6.0,5.8,5.7,
2004,5.7,5.6,5.8,5.6,5.6,5.6,5.5,5.4,5.4,5.5,5.4,5.4,
2005,5.3,5.4,5.2,5.2,5.1,5.0,5.0,4.9,5.0,5.0,5.0,4.9,
2006,4.7,4.8,4.7,4.7,4.6,4.6,4.7,4.7,4.5,4.4,4.5,4.4,
2007,4.6,4.5,4.4,4.5,4.4,4.6,4.6,4.6,4.7,4.7,4.7,5.0,
2008,5.0,4.8,5.1,5.0,5.4,5.5,5.8,6.1,6.2,6.6,6.9,7.4,
2009,7.7,8.2,8.6,8.9,9.4,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.8,10.1,10.0,10.0,
2010,9.7,9.7, , , , , , , , , , ,
scott
March 31st, 2010
4:31 pm
Oh and Dan Rather Biden…Its rather amusing how you libs are so quick to question me when I put up information but when Cynthia totally fabricates stuff (Eg. rewrites history to say that it was the Reps who were against the CRA when in fact it was the Dems who fought so hard against it), you don’t say a word.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
4:31 pm
blutto I didn’t surrender anything. I’m saying that without government to protect me from the evils of business and corporations, they will pollute at will, overwork people for subsistance wages, ignore product liability and generally screw us. I need someone larger than me that has the ability to be that protector.
However, thank you for putting words in my mouth. Maybe you’d like to complete both sides of the discussion?
ATLshirt.com
March 31st, 2010
4:33 pm
Scott, trying to prove anything to liberals these days, is kind of like fighting with someone who has down syndrome, it just makes us all look bad… Just sit back, let them screw it up, and when they start blaming the screw ups on us again, then you just at them and laugh… ignorance really is bliss!!
blutto
March 31st, 2010
4:35 pm
Regarding job creation, one thing is for certain. Under every president from Harry Truman through George W. Bush, the nation created jobs. Unfortunately and despite a trillion or so thrown down various rat holes, the current president is presiding over a nation that–under his watch–lost over 5 million jobs during his first year in office.
LeftisRight
March 31st, 2010
4:36 pm
Ever wonder why Raygun and Bush encouraged illegal immigration? Business wants a steady supply of hungry workers, that’s why. The capitalists get a bigger slice of the pie every year at the worker’s expense. The workers get longer working hours with incomes that barely keep up with inflation and decreasing benefits. If the income distribution gets extreme enough th eworkers willeventually rise and eat the rich.
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
4:37 pm
“Work your alloted time, fail at something, and management will have to provide more workers. It is women in the workforce who are causing the problems, seeking to prove themselves. No one cares, just do the parts of the job you can in the alloted time, and go home.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you work for the government, a non-profit, or academia? Your advice to your wife is a sure fire recipe for getting fired.
Dan
March 31st, 2010
4:42 pm
Ctucker not at all my comment regarding productivity going up is simple logic even in the worst of times if you are compelled to make lays offs in a bad economy who are you going to keep and who are you going to lay off? Unions not withstanding of course since that would go by longevity not productivity. It is one of those obvious realities that people choose to not believe because it sounds like piling on. obviously there are some good workers let go via bad mgmt decisions or entire entities folding, but generaly companies keep the better workers so you would expect productivity to go up
Granny Godzilla
March 31st, 2010
4:42 pm
scott
you’re wrong.
deal with it.
My Data source is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If you get to call me Dan Rather Biden can I call you Jonah Goldberg Rove-Cheney?
blutto
March 31st, 2010
4:45 pm
left wing @ 4:31: “I’m saying that without government to protect me from the evils of business and corporations, they will pollute at will, overwork people for subsistance (sic) wages, ignore product liability and generally screw us. I need someone larger than me that has the ability to be that protector.”
Like I said, you are willing to give up your liberty in exchange for “someone larger than me to be that protector.” If you fear business more than government, then on April 15 write to any business and tell its owners that you refuse to give money for their product. Trust me. Nothing bad will happen to you. Then issue that same message to the Federal Government. By the way, you might want to consider whether or not an orange jump suit is the fashion trend you want to join.
Mark
March 31st, 2010
4:59 pm
Tucker’s ignorance is just shameful.
Dave
March 31st, 2010
5:00 pm
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Year,Jan,Feb,Mar,Apr,May,Jun,Jul,Aug,Sep,Oct,Nov,Dec
1990,5.4,5.3,5.2, 5.4,5.4, 5.2,5.5,5.7,5.9, 5.9,6.2, 6.3
1991,6.4,6.6,6.8, 6.7,6.9, 6.9,6.8,6.9,6.9, 7.0,7.0, 7.3
1992,7.3,7.4,7.4, 7.4,7.6, 7.8,7.7,7.6,7.6, 7.3,7.4, 7.4
1993,7.3,7.1,7.0, 7.1,7.1, 7.0,6.9,6.8,6.7, 6.8,6.6, 6.5 <– Clinton Takes office
1994,6.6,6.6,6.5, 6.4,6.1, 6.1,6.1,6.0,5.9, 5.8,5.6, 5.5
1995,5.6,5.4,5.4, 5.8,5.6, 5.6,5.7,5.7,5.6, 5.5,5.6, 5.6
1996,5.6,5.5,5.5, 5.6,5.6, 5.3,5.5,5.1,5.2, 5.2,5.4, 5.4,
1997,5.3,5.2,5.2, 5.1,4.9, 5.0,4.9,4.8,4.9, 4.7,4.6, 4.7, <– Clinton Re-elected
1998,4.6,4.6,4.7, 4.3,4.4, 4.5,4.5,4.5,4.6, 4.5,4.4, 4.4,
1999,4.3,4.4,4.2, 4.3,4.2, 4.3,4.3,4.2,4.2, 4.1,4.1, 4.0,
2000,4.0,4.1,4.0, 3.8,4.0, 4.0,4.0,4.1,3.9, 3.9,3.9, 3.9,
2001,4.2,4.2,4.3, 4.4,4.3, 4.5,4.6,4.9,5.0, 5.3,5.5, 5.7, <– dot com bubble burst, 9/11
2002,5.7,5.7,5.7, 5.9,5.8, 5.8,5.8,5.7,5.7, 5.7,5.9, 6.0,
2003,5.8,5.9,5.9, 6.0,6.1, 6.3,6.2,6.1,6.1, 6.0,5.8, 5.7, <– Bush Tax Cuts Passes
2004,5.7,5.6,5.8, 5.6,5.6, 5.6,5.5,5.4,5.4, 5.5,5.4, 5.4,
2005,5.3,5.4,5.2, 5.2,5.1, 5.0,5.0,4.9,5.0, 5.0,5.0, 4.9,
2006,4.7,4.8,4.7, 4.7,4.6, 4.6,4.7,4.7,4.5, 4.4,4.5, 4.4,
2007,4.6,4.5,4.4, 4.5,4.4, 4.6,4.6,4.6,4.7, 4.7,4.7, 5.0,
2008,5.0,4.8,5.1, 5.0,5.4, 5.5,5.8,6.1,6.2, 6.6,6.9, 7.4, <– Housing market/financial "metldown"
2009,7.7,8.2,8.6, 8.9,9.4, 9.5,9.4,9.7,9.8, 10.1,10.0,10.0, <– Obama takes office. "Stimulus"
2010,9.7,9.7, , , , , , , , , , ,
left wing
March 31st, 2010
5:01 pm
blutto You gave a straw man argument.
Why do you think regulatory agencies are created in the first place? Because corporations get caught screwing people and we need something to monitor their activity to ensure it doesn’t reoccur. Let’s take the financial regulatory bills they’re looking at right now in congress. The financial industry created mechanisms of high risk with no danger of loss to themselves. We paid for it. So we need a mechanism to monitor them and prevent them from doing it to us again.
I suppose you like the name blutto because he was the bully that used to push Popye and Olive Oil around. How emblematic of a republican.
Dave
March 31st, 2010
5:02 pm
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have”
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
5:04 pm
“That some or even most salaried workers may work extended hours is nothing new.”
True statement, but the qualifier is your use of the word MAY. In today’s world it’s not that salaried workers MAY work extended hours it’s expected that they work extended hours. Which is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make and how that new expecatation produces false productivity numbers and depresses employment. If you can pressure your salaried people to accept 50 hours as the expected work week (because times are tough and you’re lucky to have a job) then the company gets 5 FTE worth of hours from 4 employees all while saving a salary for that 5th FTE. The company gains a 5th virtual employee in terms of hours worked, but doesn’t have to pay a salary and doesn’t hire a real employee.
left wing
March 31st, 2010
5:08 pm
“You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store” – Tennessee Ernie Ford
You know why it was called the company store? Because the mining company (that’s who he was singing about) used to own the store the miners bought their clothes/food at; the mining company owned the shantys they slept in. This is what it was like before government regulation.
Those that don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it.
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
5:14 pm
“generaly companies keep the better workers so you would expect productivity to go up” Dan…based on some personal experiences and those of some friends who gets laid off is more frequently being determined by salary/wage cost than being a good worker. Dropping one high paid, very excellent employee lets you keep two lesser paid, mediocre employees.
blutto
March 31st, 2010
5:30 pm
left wing @5:01 “The financial industry created mechanisms of high risk with no danger of loss to themselves.”
Really? You mean all those bank failures were just an illusion? Wonder what ever happened to Countrywide, Lehman Brothers or Wachovia? Did their stockholders get rich in the financial meltdown?
left wing: “So we need a mechanism to monitor them and prevent them from doing it to us again.”
You mean something along the lines of the government concoctions Fannie Mae ($59 Billion lost in 2009) or Freddie Mac ($26 Billion lost in 2009)? I sure sleep well knowing that those superbly run GSEs hold about $5 Trillion in mortgages.
As for the “How emblematic of a republican” comment, you have even less knowledge of any party affiliation I might have than you do about the relative dangers of government and business. The latter gives what people need or want or it perishes. The former takes and almost never gives value for money.
Ric
March 31st, 2010
5:31 pm
CT,
In the “real” world we are not hiring because we have no incentive to hire. You should join us, its’ a treat out here!!!
Devil is freezing
March 31st, 2010
5:31 pm
Twice in less than a year that I’ve agreed with CT. Salaried technology workers have been expected to be prepared to work nights and weekends periodically in the past. Now it seems everyone is treated as on-call, shifting vacations around shifting expectations and releases, as there are too few folks to back us up. Offshore has failed as well, stretching projects further with communication and geographical issues.
Dan
March 31st, 2010
5:45 pm
Net Banker I agree that happens and I have been on both sides of the coin. But two for the price of one is usually a good business decision if those lower paid employees can do your job than you were overpaid
And usually business owners and managers strive to keep the employees who help them succeed, to do otherwise would be bad for business in general
NetBanker
March 31st, 2010
6:05 pm
“if those lower paid employees can do your job than you were overpaid” I don’t entirely agree with your statement, Dan. I might if all 3 employees were doing exactly the same job. In enough cases while the lower paid employees can manage to do the job it’s just not as well done or as efficiently done as the higher paid person. Sometimes that is acceptable and sometimes it actually hurts your business.
It’s odd to me that in an information driven society companies tend to under-value knowledge and experience held by employees and to understand that in some cases it’s why those employees are highly paid and effective at their job.
Mr Charlie
March 31st, 2010
6:09 pm
The wild card is health care, as it becomes more and more expensive to employ people, you will see more businesses need to produce more productivity out of existing employees. You think a company that has 49 employees will make plan to hire more even if it is warrented?
gadawg
March 31st, 2010
6:21 pm
Cynthia, did you read the notice in today’s paper about the NJ 25 year old that sold her 7 year old half sister for sex. Some African Americans are no more than animals.
The Tar and Feathers Party
March 31st, 2010
6:22 pm
President Obama lifting the ban on drilling off shore in the Eastern Gulf and off the East Coast tells me the oil situation is more dire than we have been led to believe. Either an attack on Iran is on the agenda, or the peak oil people are right, either way we are in deep trouble.
The Tar and Feathers Party
March 31st, 2010
6:39 pm
Dear netbanker: You are obviously unemployed, and most likely, unemployable. Management will always keep adding work as long as the workers keeps up. Only when the worker fails at a task does management know that they have gone too far in adding work. A prime example of this is in a major metro area hospital system. Right now, there are more Director level positions open than I have ever seen, more RN postions, and more Unit manager positions. People are resigning and/or preparing to resign at a high rate. Why? Because management has been adding to the workload with out adding resources. The patient load on the floor has gone from 5 to 9 patients in a little over a year. Unit managers are under pressure to keep overtime to a minimum, keep staffing levels at the 9 patients to one RN level, and this is increasing stress to unreasonable levels. A sentinel event is widely expected to be the result of this unreasonable increase in the workload and stress level, an event that JCAHO will trace back to managements unreasonable increase in workload and stress levels. I know you are a little slow, but you will have to look up the meaning of a sentinel event all by yourself.
Dirty old man
March 31st, 2010
6:46 pm
Ric, why is there no incentive to hire? Could it possibly be there’s no demand for whatever service or good your company offers? Are you saying that the current government is driving away your customers? Why do you need an incentive to hire? In the real world, the only incentive required is a long line of customers who need what the company offers and have the money to pay for it. To complain that there is “no incentive to hire” sounds like a wish for nanny government to give you a handout.
Blutto, what kind of “liberty” is there when a person works his/her butt off all day for a chintsy wage and comes home exhausted? Just what is your definition of “liberty?”
Refusal to pay tax on April 15 is against the law. If you don’t like those taxes, you are more than welcome to write a letter to your Rep, Senator, and every other elected official, and you have the right to vote them out and encourage others to do the same.
“If you fear business more than government, then on April 15 write to any business and tell its owners that you refuse to give money for their product Trust me. Nothing bad will happen to you.” –While I would never trust a blogger, this argument is completely nonsensical anyway. If I write a letter to a business and tell them I refuse to give them money for their product, they will either discard the letter, or maybe give me a call asking for my business. But they are in no way accountable to me and I cannot vote for their replacement. If I possess their product or they have delivered a service and I write them said letter, refusing to pay for the product or service, there are words called “theft” and “breach of contract.” That business will use the same police, court, and jail that the IRS would use.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
March 31st, 2010
7:00 pm
Dear leftwing @ 4:11, a minor correction, CRA does not excuse any violation of other law nor exempt any transaction from any regulation. Credit history/scores – perhaps the most significant element of loan judgment – are the only element of underwriting affected by CRA, and regrettably that effect is adverse. No, unfortunately, CRA merely adds another law to be followed, urging lending to weaker credits, without giving any off-setting benefit to bankers and underwriters. My opposition to CRA, accordingly, is fully consistent with my libertarian views.
blutto
March 31st, 2010
7:35 pm
Dirty old man,
As much as I would like to respond to your incomprehensible screed, the mere thought of trying to figure out what you meant to write–but couldn’t–leaves me eager to go have supper instead.
Dirty old man
March 31st, 2010
7:58 pm
Blutto, I tried to write in a way you could understand, but considering your silly opinions and insulting response, I just can’t make myself that stupid. Like every other conservative republican, you name call and criticize when your jingositic arguments are shot down.
Acer706
April 4th, 2010
2:09 am
CT:
Thank you for finding a “silver lining” to employment figures! This down-turn will make our work-force stronger when all “said and done.”
Economics!!!! No Argument can apply…
“Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government”
- Milton Friedman
Granny Godzilla
April 6th, 2010
1:47 pm
W.Va. Mine Deaths Not First For Company
Kingsley Tagbo
April 11th, 2010
6:46 pm
That is an sad but interesting story … but we don’t have to worry about these scenarios anymore afterall, the economy is improving