George isnt a junior. He is the son of George Herbert Walker Bush. Im just being picky.
Posted on 12/26/2002 9:38:29 AM PST by FlyingA
H-1B
Some facts:
1. The economy was tubing before George JR even was elected, and way before he was sworn in as President! It started tubing in the middle of July, during the election, and basically Clinton did nothing, but campaign for his wife, and count the silverware and select furniture (and young female aids) in the White House to take with him to his new "home" in NY.
2. The boom of the 90s was in fact 90% smoke and mirrors. It was built to flip (a principle that you can find numerous articles about). Buy low, make everything look good, and then sell high before it all implodes. A very select few made millions off the scam (and it went past the point of being a business model, to the point of being turned into a scam similar to pyramid scams).
3. The IT field was already dead and flooded with H1bs by this time. IT Companies had already pushed as much of their capabilities offshore as fast as they could by July of 2000. The stage was more than set for the fall of the IT industry. And in fact had already started the decline in 98, but had been made to appear to be OK by fancy accounting.
4. A Congressman best summed up what happened in the 90s during the Global Crossing hearings with the remarks to their former CEO: "You bought what you didn't need, with money you didn't have, and wrote checks for it knowing that they would eventually bounce. You played a shell game with the money, fixed the books to make things look OK, paid yourself huge salaries and bonuses, and made a huge personal fortune out of it, and then jumped ship before it all came crashing down, leaving everyone else to go down with the ship."
Face it, H1b, the 90s was an artificial boom (scam) created by a few top executives with some "get rich quick" schemes that netted them fortunes (and we will never know how much they really made because the majority of it went into offshore accounts that the Government can't get to, or if they can, they won't blow the sources over a fraud case) and left most of the people holding an empty bag. And, the worst part is that everyone seen it coming, knew it was coming, knew it couldn't be stopped, and still ignored it because they "wanted to believe" that the good times would never end. And they really didn't end until the Government stepped in and forced the CEOs, CFOs, and top execs to be personally, punitively, and criminally liable for the financial statements of their companies in July of 2002. What you will find, as very interesting reading, are all the revised financial statements listed on or about Aug 14 2002, on the SEC.GOV site. Most Corp's had filed by July 2002, showing great profits trying to boost their stock value (another important factor in "built to flip"...make things look good). Then, all of a sudden, they (CEOs, CFOs) could go to jail for, let's call it a lack of accuracy in their financial statements, and they quickly corrected the filings, showing the real situation (which by the way they knew all the time anyway, because they had been running two or three sets of books), which was none to bright needless to say. In a nutshell, during the 90s, illegal fraud had become so wide spread that it had become accepted as normal business practices. But, that ended also.
And now we are paying for the eight years of neglect. Paying with an economy that is in shreds, fear of foreign terrorist attack, companies that are still shoving infrastructure off shore as fast as they can, and definitely not enough jobs to go around. It took eight years to get in this mess, and will take a lot longer to get out because now the laws prohibit faking a recovery with fancy accounting. If there is going to be a recovery, it is going to have to be a real recovery, built on true growth, not "smoke and mirrors" and "fancy fraudulent" accounting. A real recovery built on tangible increase not fancy accounting. And, it takes a lot longer to build something good than it does to make something look good. I have a feeling it will take another 3 or 4 years before this mess is finally fixed.
You may be forgiven for speaking hyperbolically if your personal situation is fragile, but the economy is not in "shreds".
One mistake in your article here is that every company was cooking its books. That's just not true. Yes, most took liberties with ambiguous accounting standards (a fault of the very regulatory agencies supposed to prevent such things), but the real losers were anything but poor dupes. These were the suckers that thought they could get something for nothing as investors; the fools that thought a "new paradigm" could support P/E's of 200 or more; the morons that thought that a company that had ".com" in its name was a sure winner.
Another thought: the IT profession is not flooded with H1B's as much as most of my fellow Americans believe. The fact is that IT is flooded with talent, period. Every yahoo with a couple of bucks and a penchant for video gaming went out and got is MS certification and thought the dough would roll in. For every ad I place for a LAN administrator I see at least 200 resumes. Sorry to tell all you techies this, but it's a buyers market out there, so you better have some sweet goods. And if you've never worked in the industry you're applying to, forget it.
You have formed opinions on the subject of which you appear to know nothing but some anecdotes from yoru personal life. Contrary to the message you have received from modern public education, your persona and the nation's economy are still two different things.
THere are decent colleges in your state. Before you post nonsense such as this, please take a course in economics and bother to get at least some basics statistics, would you?
Clinton is to blame - not H1B !
WASHINGTON—The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?
Through all of President Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high -- a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year while in fact it was declining.
Although a political motive for Democratic cooking of the government's books is there, nobody -- including Bush administration officials -- alleges specific wrongdoing. Nor is there any evidence. Estimation in 2000 was conducted by career public servants who are doing the same jobs today (working under a highly political Democrat in the Commerce Department). Nevertheless, such discrepancy in earnings statements by corporate executives today would warrant a congressional subpoena.
The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis quarterly estimates before-tax profits of domestic non-financial corporations, releasing the information the last week of the month following the quarter. Revised figures last week showed profits were really lower by 10.7 percent, 12.2 percent, 15.2 percent and 18 percent for the four quarters of 1999. In 2000, this gap became a chasm. The revised quarterly profits for the election year are lower than the announced figures by 23.3 percent, 25.9 percent, 29.9 percent and 28.2 percent.
Most startling, original estimates showed a generally rising profit outlook for the two years preceding the election. Starting with $503.7 billion in the last quarter of 1998, the quarterly estimates rose steadily to $543.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999 and then took off in the first two quarters of 2000 to $574.9 billion and $606.6 billion, leveling off to $602.9 billion in the third quarter (before falling to $527.3 billion in the fourth quarter after the election).
Last week's revised returns reflect not only different numbers but a different trend (starting at a much lower level of $473 billion). Profits actually fell through much of 2000, dropping from $449.7 billion to $422.4 billion for the second half (before slipping to $372.8 billion).
How could there be this big of a discrepancy? How could the government have reported steadily rising profits when they actually peaked in 1998?
"The gap is a bit larger than usual, but not really out of line," Brent Moulton, associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told me. Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services).
Moulton's boss in 1999-2000 was one of the Clinton administration's most politically astute economists: Under Secretary of Commerce Rob Shapiro, a pioneer "New Democrat" and early friend and supporter of Bill Clinton. I asked him flatly: "Did you cook the books?"
Shapiro laughed it off, asserting that the Bureau of Economic Analysis is "the most non-political, non-partisan agency in the government."
That begs the question of whether the bureau's very political, very partisan management chief should have known the bureaucrats were on the wrong track.
"No," said Shapiro, "2000 looked very good to us." He dismissed the early reports as "an econometric projection based on estimates."
The result: headlines in 2000 spewing false information of corporate profits growing at 25 percent, bolstering the stock market and holding up the state of the economy as the election approached. That is the underpinning for the Democratic myth that a growing and vibrant American economy has been sabotaged by President Bush's tax cut ("We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth," says House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt).
If the government's books were not purposely cooked in the same way as corporate accounts, there still remains the question of how the government could be so wrong. The Bureau of Economic Analysis may well be free
1. The economy was tubing before George JR even was elected, Presidents have nothing to do with the economy. 2. The boom of the 90s was in fact 90% smoke and mirrors. Absolutely false and ridiculous statement.
A very select few made millions off the scam (and it went past the point of being a business model, to the point of being turned into a scam similar to pyramid scams). Past "business model?" Even more ridoculous and unsupported.
3. The IT field was already dead and flooded with H1bs by this time. What do "dead" and "flooded" have to do with each other?
Also, IT is far from dead, contrary to the perception of the author.
IT Companies had already pushed as much of their capabilities offshore as fast as they could by July of 2000. AS evidenced by what?
The stage was more than set for the fall of the IT industry. Yeh, right: the over-investment into telecom has nothing to do with that.
4. A Congressman best summed up what happened in the 90s during the Global Crossing THis and Enron have something to do with fraud. They have as much common with the functioning of an economy as bank robbery.
There was no shortage of qualified "technical" folks. But now we have a huge glut of them as everyone ran out to get "certified" or back to school for advanced degrees and we imported by the 10,000s - 100,000.
It was a bad program, but it was not responsible for ruining the economy. The economy did what it has done for the last 50 years, adhered to a 10 year cycle. The "irrational exhuberance" in the stock market wasn't new either.
What was irresponsible was the greed of the CEO/CFO, Rubin's Treasury Department and the individual investor. By declaring an end to the business cycle in the "new" economy, by promoting appearance over substance, by placing personal and stockholder's interest over long term corporate health, the bubble (not boom as in the Eisenhower and Reagan) economy was inflated and fools easily parted from their money were given bad advise by sham snake oil sales(persons for the PC among you.)
The ecomony is not ruined, it was never as "good" as Clinton/Gore/Rubin claimed it was and corrected itself after nearly a decade of growth as the "old school" economists predicted.
The H1-B program should go because it was bad law based on false information. Not because it can be blamed for the whiners losing their 401(k) value from the height of the bubble economy in poorly diversified accounts. Like I said, a fool and his money ....
"The gap is a bit larger than usual, but not really out of line," Brent Moulton, associate director at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, told me. Moulton, who was in charge of both the old figures and the new revision, said the problem was the two-year delay in obtaining corporate tax returns (reflecting changes in telecommunications and business services).
THe rest is Novak's allegation. Now, what is YOUR point? How is the article related to the original post?
Perhaps, I should better ask, how is the original post related to itself?
George isnt a junior. He is the son of George Herbert Walker Bush. Im just being picky.
It perpetuated the myth of profit and growth in the technology field that did not exist, Not true.
As you know, one needs a sponsor for H1B, which means that the employers wanted to hire and had a shortage.
Further, you somehow equate H1B with IT. This is false: many in the medical field and the academe are hired wih H1B as well.
could not have sustained itself and year after year proved false (i.e. P/E's were exponentially rising with stock prices reflecting unrealistic returns).
You are confusing the stock prices with profitability of the underlying company.
How has the greed of "CEO/CFO" (COO, CIO... any other Cs?) manifested itself? How did you remove all other explanations for the decisions made by the executives to arrive at this conclusion? How many CEOs do you personally know? At how many meetings have you been present to observe the alleged greed in action?
How has "Rubin's Tresury" benefited from its "greed." What specific wealth has Rubin pocketed as a result?
And the true stats on the negative imacts of H1B immigration on the economy will probably never be revealed in any "official" reports.
There are no stats, friend: H1B is a drop in the bucket for the economy. You are thinking of the effect that your boiling water for tea has on world weather: it's nill. H1B has a bit bigger impact, but not by much.
Try not to fall for conspiracies when education will do.
The employers saw the $$$ of Indian IT consulting firms telling them that they could provide degreed IT professionals for 1/4 of the price. So they hired them to save money. Well, they were a complete pain, and most of their degrees weren't worth the paper they were printed on. These people had PhDs from Indian universities and didn't get first year computer science concepts. Their programming was horrible. Trying to have conference calls with an 11 1/2 time difference was horrendous.
In the end, it was all phased back out, as I hope other companies will do.
If foreigners want american work, let them immigrate here and compete.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.