Posted on 02/03/2004 12:28:18 PM PST by Walkin Man
Job Cuts Top 100,000 in January - Report Tuesday February 3, 12:50 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Planned job cuts in January were 26 percent higher than in December as U.S. jobs moved to countries like India, China and the Philippines, and as mergers made some jobs redundant, according to a report on Tuesday.
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., said post-holiday job cuts reached 117,556 in January surpassing the 100,000 threshold for the first time since last October.
Financial markets were on their toes awaiting January's payrolls report to be issued by the Labor Department on Friday after a disappointing December report that showed an increase of only 1,000 jobs.
Analysts had expected 150,000 new jobs to show up in the data, and the worse-than-expected outcome showed that the U.S. economic recovery has yet to produce sustained jobs growth. Economists again expect a figure of 150,000 new jobs in January.
Poor job creation is a headache for President Bush as he seeks re-election in November. The economy -- specifically job creation -- is expected to be a key issue in the campaign. Since Bush took office, more than 2.3 million non-farm jobs have been lost.
According to Challenger, consumer product companies led the January cutbacks with 22,775 job cuts, the largest number of reported job cuts in that sector in a single month since 1993, according to Challenger.
Challenger said one of the main factors for the job cuts in January was an increase of employers eliminating jobs in the United States and shifting to service providers in India, China and the Philippines among other countries.
Another factor was an increase in mergers so far this year. The survey's head, John Challenger, noted in a statement that one of those mergers will result in "as many as 10,000 job cuts to take place as redundant positions are eliminated."
The jobs don't really need to be created --- the jobs are there but being sent to China and all other kinds of places. Not much is being done to encourage businesses to stay in the USA. Not much is being done to equalize the tax burden on those who produce in the USA with those who produce offshore.
I didn't "overlook" that fact. Of course a person in the position you describe wouldn't survive that, without (for example) giving up their mortgage and moving into a cheaper place, i.e. apartment.
What you're saying is that this is a less appealing option than simply collecting unemployment. That's true. And, it's great. Because it means that we have a system where even when people get laid off etc., they can typically afford not to look for jobs at Walmart fro yo etc. for a long time, and still stay in the same homes. Isn't that great?
I'm still trying to figure out how all this adds up to "we must blame Bush"
It would not be good --- no job holes in my resume would be good. Only working is a good option ---- just that having the unemployment checks would be better for me than a McDonald check.
How about eliminating the minimum wage. Does that sound good to you? I believe that would help "encourage" businesses to stay in the USA, for starters. We could also get rid of unemployment insurance, disability, social security, Medicare, etc. Sound appealing yet? All these things add to the cost of employing people for businesses, and thus discourage them from "staying" here (in the sense of employing people here). So what you're saying is that you want to get rid of these things, correct?
It's awfully tiring to hear people complain about jobs being sent offshore and companies not being "encouraged to stay" when some of them (not all of them, but some) are the same people who demanded the things that scare companies away in the first place and would scream bloody murder if they were ever taken away.
Not much is being done to equalize the tax burden on those who produce in the USA with those who produce offshore.
What specifically would you have be done?
What should I Blame Bush for not doing?
And, why should I think that President Kerry would do it more than Bush?
Let me know, cuz otherwise I'm not sure what the point of all this complaining is.
Someone posted a thread here about a year ago which had the story of an unemployed engineer in Southern Cal. who did exactly that. IIRC he was making over $200,000.
I noticed it because it is what I have been recommending as a startup business for years. Years ago I had two convenience stores and I was paying $100 each back then. Do two stores a day like that and you are pulling 50 grand. I keep telling these young guys to get a clean white shirt, white pants, and white sneakers ($1.00 each at the thrift store) and look like a window washer and get out there and sell. They look at me like I'm crazy. They are riding bicycles when they could be driving Corvettes.
I'm for eliminating most of that --- start with Social Security ---- let me just manage my own retirement, then cut the others. But also quit offsouring the jobs, quit bringing in millions of unskilled, indigent people from the third world ---- then companies compete for workers ---- enticing them with company retirement plans and health insurance. Yes --- get rid of all the government programs --- but encourage labor shortages that get me the kind of benefits I really want to have.
Clever.
And an apt comparison actually. Notice, in Hoover's case people can point to an ACTUAL CONCRETE ACTION which (almost everyone agrees) affected the economy very negatively and is seldom argued to have had any significant positive effects in other ways (Hawley-Smoot).
So what exactly are people pointing to in the case of Bush? Tell me what he DID don't just complain about job numbers and not enough jobs "created" as if the President is the Economy God who controls all these things magically or metaphysically. Give me something *concrete*. I may even agree!
Instead, ironically, I gather that many of the complainers here would have Bush do stuff like... enact tariffs. Interesting :)
Yes --- that's just it --- it's come down to Democrat = Republican. Kerry might do it more, he might do it less, he's not going to do it drastically different. I'd rather see Democrat != Republican.
The US dollar is getting weaker, because we are importing more than we are exporting. The decline of the dollar is not going to bring back jobs and factories in the United States, that is not why our companies are getting rid of american citizens as employees and replacing americans with chinese communists as employees.
And yes, it does have to do with lower wages, a chinese communist will work for 27cents an hour, which doesnt even pay for social security for an american worker. American citizens will never compete as long as we have social security.
Well of course... look, winning the frickin' lottery would be good. We are talking in relative terms here. The fact that you can actually safely afford to collect unemployment, stay where you are, and look/wait for a job in your chosen industry in the area where you live at a similar pay rate is what's good, compared to the alternatives on the table. I wasn't pretending that utopianistic dreams of never having job-holes on your resume (or, winning the lottery) were actually on the table, if that helps clarify.
...and that is your proposal on how the United States will be able to continue to be a world power in the 21st century? Is that how we will be able to beat the chinese with all their factories and high tech and after they build up their military? a nation of window washers?
I heard of one where they forced the employees to sit in the lobby for eight hours. They would call them in for a half hour or an hour when they were needed.
1. Because they are willfully blind.
2. Because they are making money on the misery of their fellow Americans.
3. Because they are closet socialist / communists / fascist, take your pick, themselves.
4. Because they just flat out don't give a *hit.
Trying to understand what you're saying here.... You're saying foreign investors sink their money in US companies who in turn hire non-US workers in foreign countries. So, according to you, if we become protectionist, the foreign investors will on longer invest in the US Companies who are making their profits from foreign labor. Hmmmmm. The American worker is getting screwed, but that's okay because as long as the big guys can keep the profits on their investments coming in -- we're all supposed to be happy. Now if these foreign investors aren't investing in US companies, what are they investing in?
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.