World markets are tanking

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

I know what you meant but that's basically an environmental policy....has nothing to do with creating a broad based economy to sustain the nation.  It's good that companies adopt operating policies that are environmentally responsible but generally those policies have little to do with the financial viability of those companies. Just a quick look and I note that most are luxury goods companies with high profit margins who can afford the extra cost of their environmental policies.  Meanwhile, the government keeps pushing those regulations on companies who can't afford to comply and they just close down or move.....leaving economic desolation in their wake.

Guess I'm still sticking to my assertion that the only  economically sound economies in the world are based on value-added production of some sort.  The coal industry is not going to be what it once was but to impose a government policy to deliberately shut it down and offer "food stamps" as a replacement is beyond belief.   Back in the day, as the coal industry declined, which it has been doing for decades, the displaced workers went north to the auto and machinery plants and to some extent were absorbed by those old rust belt industries.  But for a number of reasons, those big employers are mostly gone and workers from coal, textiles, furniture,  and even the auto industry,  have no fall back employment opportunities. The standard of living have declined for millions of blue collar workers and almost nothing has been done to take up the slack. 

Some of the things being proposed may not work as hoped .....but to do nothing and just accept the status quo as some in Washington have done...the "new economy" I have heard people say...//that's shameful in my view.

I see where you're coming from, but to me it's making an excuse for a section of workers who haven't changed with the times.  In many cases, these employees screwed themselves with oversized union demands (see: pensions) that practically forced the hand of manufacturers to move operations overseas where a more sustainable business model could be utilized.  It's also why you see more and more auto plants that do open in the U.S. do so in the South, where unions are much less common, keeping overall costs down.

Also, technology has drastically changed what industries are viable in this country and it's not incumbent on companies / government to provide a fall back option for future employment.  It's incumbent on the worker to change or adapt skill sets to the changing world in order to stay employed.  When expensive labor became combined with consumer demand for cheaper product, it became pretty evident that traditional blue collar jobs were eventually going away in favor of newer gigs that work with today's reality.

[AU64 10,122]

If, as most Americans seem to believe,  it is incumbent on government to financially support those in the work force who are no longer able to support themselves because of changing labor demands or whatever other reasons......,   it damn sure seems prudent for government to do something serious to help those people adjust in some way other than than put them on a life time dole of subsistence subsidies like Food Stamps and free healthcare.

The theory that unemployed workers brought this on themselves is about 90% bogus in my observation.   In fact, many of our job losses have resulted from deliberate policies of the US government....actions in addition to some of the labor issue Brad mentioned above that have marginalized entire industries and put millions of people out of work over night....with no plan about what to do about them.    For people in their 40s, 50s and even 60s in small and middle sized industrial towns...when the major employer goes out of business, it short order just about every other establishment in the community is affected, housing values plummet and people whose primary asset is their home cant sell the house and have no resources to move and typically no knowledge of where to go and seek a new job. 

Just like BO and HC announced about coal, the government had a deliberate plan to kill that industry and apparently everyone associated with it including the Mom and Pop grocery that served the town where the mine was located......and of course, they had NO plan about when to do with the people affected by those actions.  We speak of the multiplier effect of a new business or industry....but that works in reverse when an industrial plant closes.     JMO but you have to be pretty cold-hearted to take the view..... "screw 'em....it's their own fault".  because in a huge number of cases, it was not their fault...sometimes poor management but just as often some well-intentioned or cynical government action doomed an old plant....or an entire industry and numerous towns. 

So now it seems the country is "burdened" with a large number of miss-skilled our unskilled people and yet we have allowed millions of additional unskilled illegal immigrants to flood the country and fight over the reduced number of lower skilled jobs in our economy.  As a result, social costs are climbing enormously as  the government tries to at least establish a level of financial support that prevents people from starving.  .

Something has to change....JMO

[japantiger 4,051]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I see where you're coming from, but to me it's making an excuse for a section of workers who haven't changed with the times.  In many cases, these employees screwed themselves with oversized union demands (see: pensions) that practically forced the hand of manufacturers to move operations overseas where a more sustainable business model could be utilized.  It's also why you see more and more auto plants that do open in the U.S. do so in the South, where unions are much less common, keeping overall costs down.

Also, technology has drastically changed what industries are viable in this country and it's not incumbent on companies / government to provide a fall back option for future employment.  It's incumbent on the worker to change or adapt skill sets to the changing world in order to stay employed.  When expensive labor became combined with consumer demand for cheaper product, it became pretty evident that traditional blue collar jobs were eventually going away in favor of newer gigs that work with today's reality.

This has been a case of our own governments open warfare on certain aspects of our economy; mainly manufacturing and energy.  These weren't "the times changing"...these were concerted efforts by a government openly hostile to its own citizens in the name of two of the establishments favorite religions called Climate Change and Free Trade...niether of these is the result of market forces...

[homersapien 11,362]

19 hours ago, AU64 said:

I know what you meant but that's basically an environmental policy....has nothing to do with creating a broad based economy to sustain the nation.  It's good that companies adopt operating policies that are environmentally responsible but generally those policies have little to do with the financial viability of those companies. Just a quick look and I note that most are luxury goods companies with high profit margins who can afford the extra cost of their environmental policies.  Meanwhile, the government keeps pushing those regulations on companies who can't afford to comply and they just close down or move.....leaving economic desolation in their wake.

Guess I'm still sticking to my assertion that the only  economically sound economies in the world are based on value-added production of some sort.  The coal industry is not going to be what it once was but to impose a government policy to deliberately shut it down and offer "food stamps" as a replacement is beyond belief.   Back in the day, as the coal industry declined, which it has been doing for decades, the displaced workers went north to the auto and machinery plants and to some extent were absorbed by those old rust belt industries.  But for a number of reasons, those big employers are mostly gone and workers from coal, textiles, furniture,  and even the auto industry,  have no fall back employment opportunities. The standard of living have declined for millions of blue collar workers and almost nothing has been done to take up the slack. 

Some of the things being proposed may not work as hoped .....but to do nothing and just accept the status quo as some in Washington have done...the "new economy" I have heard people say...//that's shameful in my view.

Food stamps aren't supposed to be permanent replacement for work.  They are a way of tiding people over until they find work.

The government also has an obligation to fund educational or training programs to help these people.

For what it's worth, Clinton did have a plan that recognized the inevitable replacement of coal in our energy mix. I'm not saying it was necessarily a good plan but it's certainly better than telling miners the industry will come back, which ain't gonna happen. 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/

[homersapien 11,362]

13 hours ago, japantiger said:

This has been a case of our own governments open warfare on certain aspects of our economy; mainly manufacturing and energy.  These weren't "the times changing"...these were concerted efforts by a government openly hostile to its own citizens in the name of two of the establishments favorite religions called Climate Change and Free Trade...niether of these is the result of market forces...

You think climate change isn't going to impact the coal industry?

If so, this is a pointless discussion.

[AU64 10,122]

1.  Food stamps aren't supposed to be permanent replacement for work.  They are a way of tiding people over until they find work.

2. The government also has an obligation to fund educational or training programs to help these people.

3. For what it's worth, Clinton did have a plan that recognized the inevitable replacement of coal in our energy mix. I'm not saying it was necessarily a good plan but it's certainly better than telling miners the industry will come back, which ain't gonna happen. 

 

48 million people more or less on food stamps and most are there almost permanently. ....just the way things work when something is free....even for non-citizens.

It's not just the workers in a closed plant or mine or mill....it's the entire community that goes down the tubes..  People who have invested their lives in small businesses, grocery stores, barber shops, diners, etc. etc.    They all get "laid off".   And the idea of retraining middle age and beyond middle age out of work people is pure academic rationalization in my view to make some folks feel like they are doing something good.  In reality, that's not the case...if you think otherwise, make a visit to places where the government has basically shut down industries of one type or another...educational and training programs for what?  to work in WalMart?    When a plant or mine closes, nothing comes in to take its place. I'm just saying ....get off the interstate when you travel around the south and see what's happened though a tour of Birmingham will probably tell you enough.  I used to live in Center Point...a nice little suburban neighborhood in the late 1960s....not so much any more I understand.

Coal is not coming back to where it was I agree, ...but she was advocating the death of the industry and frankly showed no respect for the people who were/are in that industry when she promised better welfare programs as their future.   Watch some videos of the meetings and tell me you would not have been seriously pissed at the condescending way she dealt with them.....as if they were expendable people. I doubt many people truly thought coal would come back to historic levels but at least DT recognized what that industry meant to the people working in it and committed to try and help them.  Now if he does like many  politicians do, goes back to Wash and forgets what he said...then you have a good point. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 hours ago, japantiger said:

This has been a case of our own governments open warfare on certain aspects of our economy; mainly manufacturing and energy.  These weren't "the times changing"...these were concerted efforts by a government openly hostile to its own citizens in the name of two of the establishments favorite religions called Climate Change and Free Trade...niether of these is the result of market forces...

This flatly ignores the reality of the today's world.  Has free trade had some impact on manufacturing jobs?  Sure.  But so has robotics, as machines are replacing humans at alarming rates.  However, free trade has also increased jobs in other sectors, specifically technology.  Free trade has aslo led to cheaper goods for everyone and actually has had a minimal impact in overall jobs lost in America.  See two links below from Forbes & Politifact.  One key excerpt below as well from Politifact:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2016/03/08/should-we-blame-trade-agreements-for-loss-of-jobs/#2b154298210d

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/

The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy arm of Congress, summarized a number of studies on NAFTA’s legacy. That report said it is difficult to tease out the effects of the trade deal by itself. Factors such as economic growth, inflation and changes in exchange rates cloud the waters. That said, the report struck a measured tone.

"NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters," the report said. "The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest."

A similar review published by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reached the same conclusion.

"The net employment effects were relatively small, although there were adjustments across sectors displacing workers," the report said.

In other words, jobs in certain industries, such as cars and electronics, might have suffered, but overall, the job impact was nominal.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

1.  Food stamps aren't supposed to be permanent replacement for work.  They are a way of tiding people over until they find work.

2. The government also has an obligation to fund educational or training programs to help these people.

3. For what it's worth, Clinton did have a plan that recognized the inevitable replacement of coal in our energy mix. I'm not saying it was necessarily a good plan but it's certainly better than telling miners the industry will come back, which ain't gonna happen. 

 

48 million people more or less on food stamps and most are there almost permanently. ....just the way things work when something is free....even for non-citizens.

It's not just the workers in a closed plant or mine or mill....it's the entire community that goes down the tubes..  People who have invested their lives in small businesses, grocery stores, barber shops, diners, etc. etc.    They all get "laid off".   And the idea of retraining middle age and beyond middle age out of work people is pure academic rationalization in my view to make some folks feel like they are doing something good.  In reality, that's not the case...if you think otherwise, make a visit to places where the government has basically shut down industries of one type or another...educational and training programs for what?  to work in WalMart?    When a plant or mine closes, nothing comes in to take its place. I'm just saying ....get off the interstate when you travel around the south and see what's happened though a tour of Birmingham will probably tell you enough.  I used to live in Center Point...a nice little suburban neighborhood in the late 1960s....not so much any more I understand.

Coal is not coming back to where it was I agree, ...but she was advocating the death of the industry and frankly showed no respect for the people who were/are in that industry when she promised better welfare programs as their future.   Watch some videos of the meetings and tell me you would not have been seriously pissed at the condescending way she dealt with them.....as if they were expendable people. I doubt many people truly thought coal would come back to historic levels but at least DT recognized what that industry meant to the people working in it and committed to try and help them.  Now if he does like many  politicians do, goes back to Wash and forgets what he said...then you have a good point. 

You misrepresent the purpose of food stamps.  They certainly are not meant for a long term solution.

And while I am not holding up Clinton's plan as the definitive model, it did have provisions for changing the regional economy.  

Nor is this about Clinton personally.  It's about approaching the problem in a comprehensive way instead of feeding them BS about having their coal minining jobs return.

[homersapien 11,362]

41 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This flatly ignores the reality of the today's world.  Has free trade had some impact on manufacturing jobs?  Sure.  But so has robotics, as machines are replacing humans at alarming rates.  However, free trade has also increased jobs in other sectors, specifically technology.  Free trade has aslo led to cheaper goods for everyone and actually has had a minimal impact in overall jobs lost in America.  See two links below from Forbes & Politifact.  One key excerpt below as well from Politifact:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2016/03/08/should-we-blame-trade-agreements-for-loss-of-jobs/#2b154298210d

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/

The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy arm of Congress, summarized a number of studies on NAFTA’s legacy. That report said it is difficult to tease out the effects of the trade deal by itself. Factors such as economic growth, inflation and changes in exchange rates cloud the waters. That said, the report struck a measured tone.

"NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters," the report said. "The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest."

A similar review published by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reached the same conclusion.

"The net employment effects were relatively small, although there were adjustments across sectors displacing workers," the report said.

In other words, jobs in certain industries, such as cars and electronics, might have suffered, but overall, the job impact was nominal.

People are inherently attracted to "scape goat" explanations of their problems.

[AU64 10,122]

Homer...I know the purpose of food stamps but I am betting most of the 40+ million recipients don't think of them as short term...especially if they are permanently out of work or working part time....for whatever reason they feel a right to them as long as they need them.

They are a mixed bag..but hard to deny that they are also a negative incentive for people to find work when combined with other government programs they might lose.

Just saying...I live in a small town and have seen ...and see this stuff first hand...it is not theoretical to me.

[homersapien 11,362]

42 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Homer...I know the purpose of food stamps but I am betting most of the 40+ million recipients don't think of them as short term...especially if they are permanently out of work or working part time....for whatever reason they feel a right to them as long as they need them.

That's not what the data says.  In fact, participation is rather dynamic.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008-2012.pdf

[AU64 10,122]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's not what the data says.  In fact, participation is rather dynamic.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008-2012.pdf

Not too surprising but SNAP is just a drop in the bucket....considering there are almost 100 "means tested" government programs out there and depending who you believe they could cost in the range of $500B to a trillion dollars.   What really matters in my view is that about 90 million Americans who theoretically are work force eligible are not in the work force and yet somehow have enough money to avoid starving for the most part.   So the government is not leaving them totally destitute but you can bet that most are not living the "good life" either.    

When the government makes the decision to close some business or imposes regulations that cause wide-spread job loss, someone should be paying attention to the human effects....and rationalizing that we have "programs" to help take care of those people is really a crappy solution in my view because the in the real world, most of those people will never again have as good a job as they lost.  

Shoot ....as an example, just consider laying off 10% of the Auburn faculty and staff .....and then come back and see how many of them would have found jobs within 5 years making as much money and benefits as they lost.   That's about 300 people, which is about 1/2 the number who lost their jobs one Monday morning in 1986 at my employer in Greensboro and who were put into the job market with virtually no notice.

[Auburn85 432]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/17/news/companies/ford-job-cuts/

 

Ford cutting 1400 jobs

[homersapien 11,362]

On 4/13/2017 at 3:58 PM, AU64 said:

Not too surprising but SNAP is just a drop in the bucket....considering there are almost 100 "means tested" government programs out there and depending who you believe they could cost in the range of $500B to a trillion dollars.   What really matters in my view is that about 90 million Americans who theoretically are work force eligible are not in the work force and yet somehow have enough money to avoid starving for the most part.   So the government is not leaving them totally destitute but you can bet that most are not living the "good life" either.    

When the government makes the decision to close some business or imposes regulations that cause wide-spread job loss, someone should be paying attention to the human effects....and rationalizing that we have "programs" to help take care of those people is really a crappy solution in my view because the in the real world, most of those people will never again have as good a job as they lost.  

Shoot ....as an example, just consider laying off 10% of the Auburn faculty and staff .....and then come back and see how many of them would have found jobs within 5 years making as much money and benefits as they lost.   That's about 300 people, which is about 1/2 the number who lost their jobs one Monday morning in 1986 at my employer in Greensboro and who were put into the job market with virtually no notice.

"Government making the decision to close some business"?

"Imposing regulations that cause wide spread job loss"?

Do you have examples you can share?

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Government making the decision to close some business"?

"Imposing regulations that cause wide spread job loss"?

Do you have examples you can share?

Homer, is something wrong? You are asking 64 to respond to something he said 7 weeks ago. Of course the Russians may have hacked my computer.

[augolf1716 21,103]

21 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Homer, is something wrong? You are asking 64 to respond to something he said 7 weeks ago. Of course the Russians may have hacked my computer.

Happens to me all the damn time. Blame bird

[Auburn85 432]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/31/payless-shoesource-discount-shoes-store-closings/102342766/

 

Payless to close up to 800 stores in total; see the list

 

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2017/06/12/retailer-gymboree-files-bankruptcy-close-up-450-stores/388818001/

 

Retailer Gymboree files for bankruptcy, to close up to 450 stores

 

 

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ascena-retail-closures-20170612-story.html

 

Ann Taylor and Lane Bryant's parent will close up to 667 stores

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/electronics-retailer-radioshack-is-closing-1000-stores.html

 

"Electronics retailer RadioShack has closed more than 1,000 stores since Memorial Day weekend..."

[AU64 10,122]

What that should tell you is don't invest in retailers.  

Sorry 85 but all those closings have nothing to do with the state of the economy....but I'm sure you know that. Actually the world economy is doing pretty well despite political upheavals all over Europe, terrorist attacks, wars in the middle east,  North Korea's threats, etc. etc.  

Despite the premise of the OP....for better or worse, consumers pretty much all over the world just keep on going to work....and buying all kinds of unnecessary stuff...it's just that they are doing more and more of it on-line.  

And for reasons that almost no one seems able to explain....the stock markets keep creeping up.  Sure hope your negative outlook has not caused you to miss the 3000 point gain in the Dow since this particular item was first posted in Nov.  Been an interesting and profitable ride for those of us who have taken advantage of it.

[ArgoEagle 1,771]

11 minutes ago, AU64 said:

What that should tell you is don't invest in retailers.  

Sorry 85 but all those closings have nothing to do with the state of the economy....but I'm sure you know that. Actually the world economy is doing pretty well despite political upheavals all over Europe, terrorist attacks, wars in the middle east,  North Korea's threats, etc. etc.  

Despite the premise of the OP....for better or worse, consumers pretty much all over the world just keep on going to work....and buying all kinds of unnecessary stuff...it's just that they are doing more and more of it on-line.  

And for reasons that almost no one seems able to explain....the stock markets keep creeping up.  Sure hope your negative outlook has not caused you to miss the 3000 point gain in the Dow since this particular item was first posted in Nov.  Been an interesting and profitable ride for those of us who have taken advantage of it.

Could it be that Homer has possessed 85? Let's hope not.

[augolf1716 21,103]

6 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Could it be that Homer has possessed 85? Let's hope not.

Nope I think bird has

[gr82be 14,423]

On 6/12/2017 at 6:18 PM, Auburn85 said:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/electronics-retailer-radioshack-is-closing-1000-stores.html

 

"Electronics retailer RadioShack has closed more than 1,000 stores since Memorial Day weekend..."

This is not a new development. They have been in trouble for several years. Filed bankruptcy in 2015. They have been irrelevant in electronics for a long time. You can buy cell phones and RC cars at Walmart with your groceries. Why make a separate trip to Radio Shack? 

[AU64 10,122]

No doubt things are bad.  I heard that all the Montgomery Ward stores are closed now. How could that happen?