Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
exiges

72% Of Usa Workers Fear For Their Job

Recommended Posts

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N40L20100824

In the latest grim news for Obama's Democrats, 72 percent of people said they were very worried about joblessness and 67 percent were very concerned about government spending.

The unemployment rate of 9.5 percent and the huge budget deficit are dragging down the Democrats and eating away at Obama's popularity only 20 months after he took office on a wave of hope that he could turnaround the economy.

Another bit of bad economic data arrived on Tuesday when the National Association of Realtors reported sales of existing homes plummeted in July to their slowest pace in 15 years.

Piling the pressure on Obama, the top Republican in the House of Representatives called on the administration's economic team to quit.

Obama's disapproval rating was 52 percent in Tuesday's poll, overtaking his approval rating for the first time in an Ipsos poll. Only 45 percent of people said they approved of the president's performance, down from 48 percent last month.

That number, coupled with a hearty 62 percent who think the country is going in the wrong direction, could spell trouble for Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67N40L20100824

In the latest grim news for Obama's Democrats, 72 percent of people said they were very worried about joblessness and 67 percent were very concerned about government spending.

Why grim news? Aren't unemployed scroungers more likely to vote for more handouts from the Obammunists?

Or are the Americans smarter than the Brits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats had their moment when they held all the power in early 2009 and had a mandate. They could have introduced sweeping legislation and a truly massive national stimulus act. Like the Chinese leaders passed in late 2008 with their centralized control of their state.

But the US national stimulus they passed came up short and too much went to bail out an already rich few. The Chinese stimulus put tens of millions to work on national projects and created demand for their industrial production of things like concrete and steel.

The Democrats also have not been willing to override the mountain of regulations and get projects going right away. Approving funding today for a project that will work through approval processes for the next 10 years before a shovel hits the ground will not do anything for unemployment.

The American people would not have cared if the stimulus was 700 billion or 3 trillion. The same people against the 700 billion would have been against the 3 trillion. To most people its just two really big numbers.

Edited by aa3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats had their moment when they held all the power in early 2009 and had a mandate. They could have introduced sweeping legislation and a truly massive national stimulus act.

'Massive stimulus' is what's caused the current debacle.

The Democrats also have not been willing to override the mountain of regulations and get projects going right away. Approving funding today for a project that will work through approval processes for the next 10 years before a shovel hits the ground will not do anything for unemployment.

The Democrats are the party of crippling regulation: how could they turn around now and claim that it was all a mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Massive stimulus' is what's caused the current debacle.

I disagree I think it is a demand led problem. The industrial capacity is easily there to provide the demand of the boom years. For example the US auto industry could easily build 20 million cars if the demand was there.. but the demand is only there for 10 million cars. Actually even in the mini-boom from 2004-2007 there was signs of overcapacty, like auto plants being idled.

The Democrats are the party of crippling regulation: how could they turn around now and claim that it was all a mistake?

Besides anything else, by always putting in crippling regulations modern leftist parties ensure the economy will be a train wreck while they are in power. They seem to have a terrible blind spot when it comes to the negative affects of over-regulation.

A good example is the Democrats stopping offshore drilling in America. Or the leftist coalition in Germany trying to shut down all their nuclear plants.

It is interesting that now all 4 of the major European economies have right leaning parties in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree I think it is a demand led problem. The industrial capacity is easily there to provide the demand of the boom years. For example the US auto industry could easily build 20 million cars if the demand was there.. but the demand is only there for 10 million cars. Actually even in the mini-boom from 2004-2007 there was signs of overcapacty, like auto plants being idled.

The problem is now structural, not demand led.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/saving-detroit-and-mexican-jobs/

April 23, 2009, 5:31 pm

Saving Detroit, and Mexican Jobs

By ELISABETH MALKIN

Over the past year, as Detroit’s troubles have mounted, Chrysler and General Motors have gone, hat in hand, to ask Congress for money. The main justification for using taxpayer money to prop up America’s failing auto industry, of course, is to protect American jobs.

But a report from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that studies economic issues that affect workers, argues that saving American automakers may instead end up saving — and even creating — Mexican jobs.

The study, by the economist Robert E. Scott, points out that auto manufacturing has been slowly moving to Mexico since 1997. The trend accelerated last year, when Mexico’s share of North American auto production rose to almost 15 percent from 11 percent in 2007. The United States’ share fell to 67 percent from 70 percent, and Canada’s share dropped one percentage point to 18 percent.

Over the past dozen years, he writes, the number of auto jobs lost to Mexico has been rising. The trade deficit with Mexico in parts and vehicles has also increased.

INSERT DESCRIPTION

What will happen if the Big Three automakers emerge from their turmoil and the economy begins to recover? Mr. Scott concludes that the automakers “plan to increase parts and vehicle production in Mexico, which is likely to lead to a surge in trade-related job losses in autos and parts.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

67 percent were very concerned about government spending.

Americans are not the thickos that the British MSM would like to have us believe. Their gut feeling is that the stimulus route is the wrong route, and you have to respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are not the thickos that the British MSM would like to have us believe.

You say that, but I think Obama was voted in more for his race than his policies.. which isn't smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are not the thickos that the British MSM would like to have us believe. Their gut feeling is that the stimulus route is the wrong route, and you have to respect that.

Not sure I believe that to be honest, the talking points in the media are about reducing the deficit and blaming it on overspending when the real problem is the unfunded tax cuts Bush put through.

The fastest increases in national debt and the largest deficits are always under the right wing, supply side regimes. The tax cut George W Bush increased national debt by $1.2t and saw no Laffer curve type increase in total tax take, oh and they increased public spending too!

The 30 year supply side experiment failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that, but I think Obama was voted in more for his race than his policies.. which isn't smart.

Nope - he had crappy opposition. I mean McCain/ Palin!!

We would have all written the yanks off as nuts if they voted those two in

Sadly, I don't think there's much difference either way. We'd still get the (impending) war against Iran, giant increases in military spending and theft of taxpayer money to finance criminal banker bonuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I believe that to be honest, the talking points in the media are about reducing the deficit and blaming it on overspending when the real problem is the unfunded tax cuts Bush put through.

The fastest increases in national debt and the largest deficits are always under the right wing, supply side regimes. The tax cut George W Bush increased national debt by $1.2t and saw no Laffer curve type increase in total tax take, oh and they increased public spending too!

The 30 year supply side experiment failed.

The Laffer curve is a classic example of an economic hypothesis that keeps currency purely because of the political implications..

But yes, Mr GW Bush did the classic US republican trick, as used by Nixon onwards, of cutting taxes and increasing spending, thus making sure that when the Democrats get in, they have their hands completely tied (Carter, Clinton and now Obama all had/have this problem). Of course, once in opposition, the Republicans suddenly discover the importance of balancing the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Laffer curve is a classic example of an economic hypothesis that keeps currency purely because of the political implications..

But yes, Mr GW Bush did the classic US republican trick, as used by Nixon onwards, of cutting taxes and increasing spending, thus making sure that when the Democrats get in, they have their hands completely tied (Carter, Clinton and now Obama all had/have this problem). Of course, once in opposition, the Republicans suddenly discover the importance of balancing the books.

And yet your "average" American (ie Fox news viewer) doesn't see this obvious truth, so I'm convinced they really are thick. Or racist. Or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is now structural, not demand led.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/saving-detroit-and-mexican-jobs/

April 23, 2009, 5:31 pm

Saving Detroit, and Mexican Jobs

By ELISABETH MALKIN

Over the past year, as Detroit’s troubles have mounted, Chrysler and General Motors have gone, hat in hand, to ask Congress for money. The main justification for using taxpayer money to prop up America’s failing auto industry, of course, is to protect American jobs.

But a report from the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that studies economic issues that affect workers, argues that saving American automakers may instead end up saving — and even creating — Mexican jobs.

Most of the demand problems are also structural in origin. Like automation has replaced 2/3rds of US auto workers. And exporting the jobs to Mexico has replaced a good chunk of the rest. But those a uto workers who used to number well into the millions were the type of people who could afford to buy cars. Including cars for middle class people where there was healthy profit margins on.

But now unemployed or working marginal 'new economy' jobs they cannot afford to buy a new car. The machines obviously don't buy new cars.. and the Mexicans do not make enough to buy new cars. So who is going to buy the cars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I believe that to be honest, the talking points in the media are about reducing the deficit and blaming it on overspending when the real problem is the unfunded tax cuts Bush put through.

Modern leaders need to stop listening to the media. Amongst the general population only a small segment even watches the news, and those people probably have already decided which party they support.

If Obama had followed the Roosevelt plans and got say 10 million people working on national public works.. those 10 million voters would easily overwhelm all media watchers whichever way they voted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern leaders need to stop listening to the media. Amongst the general population only a small segment even watches the news, and those people probably have already decided which party they support.

If Obama had followed the Roosevelt plans and got say 10 million people working on national public works.. those 10 million voters would easily overwhelm all media watchers whichever way they voted.

Isn't the problem multinational corporations?

These are the biggest exporters of jobs, American or otherwise. (But . . . mostly American.)

Where do America's most successful brands actually make their stuff? Whether you are talking Apple gizmos, Fender guitars or Levi jeans, it ain't in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.