Posted on 12/30/2002 10:06:52 AM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
What are the odds of the nation's unemployed getting back on the payroll in 2003?
Not very good, according to job-seekers who, by 2 to 1, told counselors during a holiday job search advice call-in that it would be harder to find a job in the coming year.
Survey results released Monday by international outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., show that 67 percent of callers to its 17th annual call-in felt it would be more difficult to find a job in 2003, compared to 33 percent who said it would be easier.
The grim outlook was coupled with an equally pessimistic view of the overall economy. Two out of three callers believed the economy would be the same or worse next year.
"This may be the most discouraged we have seen callers in the 17 year history of the call-in. We have only conducted surveys of callers in recent years, but counselors do not remember confidence or the overall mood of callers ever being this low -- not even during the last recession and jobless recovery of the early 1990s," says Rick Cobb, executive vice president of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
The overwhelming majority (68 percent) of callers this year were unemployed, a change from years past when there was more balance between working and non-working callers. Among the jobless callers, the average duration of unemployment was 8.3 months.
While salary was the most important factor in a new job, nearly as many callers said having a job with a good future is equally important.
Apparently most callers feel they can find this future in small- to medium-sized firms. Eighty percent of job-seekers said they prefer to work for a company with fewer than 500 employees.
"Large public companies may have more resources, but some people feel that these employers are concerned first and foremost with the bottom line and will not hesitate to make payroll reductions in order to meet earnings expectations and to appease Wall Street analysts," Mr. Cobb says. "Smaller companies, which are more likely to be privately held, often have a more family-oriented view of their workforce and will make sacrifices in all other areas before resorting to layoffs."
Approximately 1,600 job-seekers called during the two-day event. They were split nearly evenly between men (54 percent) and women (46 percent).
Then you're just another loser who can't handle the reality that's published in the business news media. Since true conservatives are capable of coping with such news objectively, one must conclude that you are actually a liberal, and unfamiliar with the topic at hand.
On this thread, narby and Jorge, so far.
Whiney liberals who don't recognize a legitimate business article are natural losers.
I don't where you have a valid basis for flippantly dismissing this article as "propaganda".
The article is propaganda.
The whole point of the article is that 67% of callers to a call-in felt it would be more difficult to find a job in 2003. First of all, a call-in poll is, by definition, completely unscientific.
Second of all, the vast majority of those that called in are unemployed. I’m thinking the optimistic outlook might be slightly under-represented in that pool.
We’re coming (a little too slowly) out of a relatively minor economic downturn. Nothing that some impressive tax cuts couldn’t fix.
But this “news” story fits your doom and gloom agenda so perfectly, I can see why you’re so defensive about it.
Tax cuts no longer have the stimulative benefits they once had. The structural deficiencies of a so-called "free trade" consumer oriented "service economy" misdirect the trickle-down, ripple-effect of such action. Rather than providing the desired eonomic stimulus throughout our economy, the cash-flow is quickly dissipated from the domestic economy as the Trade Deficit, leaving Americans deeper in debt and scratching harder to make a living.
The structural deficiencies of a so-called "free trade" consumer oriented "service economy" misdirect the trickle-down, ripple-effect of such action.
So what’s the solution, Willie?
I’m guessing that, as always, you’ll express your support for further government control of business and trade. The problem is, you’ll be very hard pressed to find a modern world example of an economic powerhouse built on your model.
An America First! shift in our taxation & trade policies:
A Proposal to Abolish the Corporate Income Tax
I’m guessing that, as always, you’ll express your support for further government control of business and trade.
Not exactly. The proposal is more in keeping with directing the Government to fullfill it's Constitutional obligation to secure our borders while freeing domestic business from onerous levels of corporate taxation.
Further government control of business and trade. No thanks.
No to abolishing the corporate income tax?
You really have imbibed the globalist Kool-Aid, haven't you?
Just another surrender monkey advocating appeasement through border obliteration and sacrifice of our national sovereignty.
You really have imbibed the globalist Kool-Aid, haven't you? Just another surrender monkey advocating appeasement through border obliteration and sacrifice of our national sovereignty.
Oh my, the name-calling!
LOL! You statist types really get your dander up, when somebody won’t buy into your all-white world of government boondoogle choo-choo trains and grossly bloated union wages.
My America First! policy proposals apply equally to ALL Americans.
My personal preference is for the cultural cohesiveness ot the American "melting pot" over the confrontational divisiveness of (Jesse) Jacksonian multiculturalism.
Your not-so-subtle attempt to play the race card is duly noted.
It identifies you as a Klintonian "Third Way" globalist, not a conservative.
Your not-so-subtle attempt to play the race card is duly noted. It identifies you as a Klintonian "Third Way" globalist, not a conservative.
You already labeled me as such (as well as a surrender monkey, horribly implying that there could possibly be one ounce of Frenchness in my blood), so I’d figured I’d live up to your billing.
By the way, when you succeed in closing the borders, are we all just going to melt into ourselves? The melting pot analogy is meaningless in your vision of fortress America (with us all living under the benevolence of Chancellor Buchanan’s grace.)
I see nothing "horrible" about having French ancestry. Why do you?
By the way, when you succeed in closing the borders, are we all just going to melt into ourselves?
Being opposed to your surrender monkey border obliteration policies does not convert control of our borders into an extremist positition of full closure. Frankly, I view our current legal immigration policies as an abomination of racial/ethnic preferences. I'd much rather see legislation enacted that controls immigration in a fashion that is more mathematicly unbiased.
For instance, if the total national immigration quota is set at 1 million immigrants, then the maximum admitted from any one nation would be 5% of the total (50,000). All preferences based on occupation, family ties, political asylum, etc. etc. would have to apply within this cap. Additional restrictions from certain nations would apply as necessary for national security.
Note: while the 5% constraint may be restrictive of a disruptive mass exodus from any one nation, it is not all that restrictive of overall immigration. In fact, the cumulative effect of immigration from nations not exceeding the 50K limit may actually yield a legal immigration total that exceeds the 1 million target. That is fine, as it would produce a wider variety of people entering the melting pot.
I'm going home for the day, so I won't argue particulars but:
I thought you, like most Buchananites, and Buchanan himself, favored a moratorium on all immigration.
Like you, I support a well monitored legal immigration though I would probably put a more robust number on it. I do not favor using US troops on the border, as I see it as an uncomfortable and unconstitutional militarization of our nation. Beefing up the border patrol, and exporting known illegals, would be adequate.
In addition, I would favor people of specific skill sets in the immigration pool. And I would put a premium on those who can speak some rough conversational English. (If somebody really really wants to live the American dream, the least they can do is spend a couple of weeks learning enough of our language to get a job.)
If somebody really really wants to live the American dream,There no longer is any American dream when we sell our citizens jobs out to the lowest bidder from foreign countries.
Yup, and when South Africa is screrwed because they don't have enough health care workers, we'll end up giving them money.
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.