Hey Job Creators - Where Are the Jobs?

[BFT3K]

Nice...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=_PDeWyjEuZs

[Mr Pheer]

Jobs died.

[Shotsie]

Figures the only politicians with any balls are Italian.




Chris Christie is half Italian, too. He's actually related to a former Genovese family boss.

[Slutboat]

FUCK YEA! Right on DeFazio

[Paul&John]

the jobs are in motion

[IllTestYourGirls]

I stopped listening after the first 30 seconds when he started the premise off with a lie.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

I stopped listening after the first 30 seconds when he started the premise off with a lie.

Which lie is that?

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Paul&John

the jobs are in motion

yes indeed, in motion to third world countries... job growth is awesome over there!

[cherrylula]

I can't stand congress. All they do is bitch at each other while doing the same exact shit just with different campaign donors.

"oooh oooh look at him he's really sticking it to the others".... :::yawn:::

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

yes indeed, in motion to third world countries... job growth is awesome over there!

We live in an global market place and global economy.
There are 2 choices...

1) accept and adapt to that reality, full participate and dominate.
2) lock down borders and stop all international trade/business and keep it all 100% within the borders.

People seem to think "blame the president" or Republicans etc are viable 3rd options, but that will never dictate whether or not Filipino programmers will work cheaper than an arrogant, lazy unemployable (er... "self employed") dickhead in Chicago that seems to feel his time is worth $90.00/hr for coding PHP.

(i didn't watch the video, I was simply commenting on your comment)

[Vendzilla]

Didn't the dems promise jobs with the Stimulus?

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Didn't the dems promise jobs with the Stimulus?

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

It's almost as if the more people try to influence and regulate the outcome, the worse the outcome is. ;)

[12clicks]

we're waiting for a new president.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Didn't the dems promise jobs with the Stimulus?

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

Again, it did that... it did it without question right at first, and much more, it just didn't do it as big as they wanted or for sure you expected.

[Robbie]

I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to hire anyone unless they need employees.

Why would anyone "create" a job that isn't needed?

The entire economy needs to be brought back to life. THEN people will hire.

For instance...BFT3K, are YOU going to go hire two extra cameramen, a full time site designer and a guy to make promo materials for your sites?
NO.

You don't NEED them. But if you did NEED them you would hire them. Why waste money on shit you don't need.

I can only laugh when I see people on news programs complaining that big companies are "sitting on tons of cash".
IT'S THEIR MONEY. They can do with it what they want!

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to hire anyone unless they need employees.

Why would anyone "create" a job that isn't needed?

The entire economy needs to be brought back to life. THEN people will hire.

For instance...BFT3K, are YOU going to go hire two extra cameramen, a full time site designer and a guy to make promo materials for your sites?
NO.

You don't NEED them. But if you did NEED them you would hire them. Why waste money on shit you don't need.

I can only laugh when I see people on news programs complaining that big companies are "sitting on tons of cash".
IT'S THEIR MONEY. They can do with it what they want!

True.... Demand creates jobs and demand increases when fair wages happen. With the largest liquid pool of cash ever in history, they only need to pay more fairly - above the cost of living, more spending will naturally happen, thus demand increases.


True, they can do whatever they want with their money.... but because they aren't doing anything with it, also means they shouldn't get anymore tax breaks, cuts, loop holes, etc. Clearly, those things do not spark job growth or apparently much real growth at all outside of stock values.

If they really wanted to help, they would focus on smaller business only... killing my labor costs, no tax on labor, I would hire Americans - until then, I hire who can do the job for the cheapest price.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

True, they can do whatever they want with their money.... but because they aren't doing anything with it, also means they shouldn't get anymore tax breaks, cuts, loop holes, etc. Clearly, those things do not spark job growth or apparently much real growth at all outside of stock values.

the government wants the intelligent successful to waste their money "creating jobs" to make the government look good.
The intelligent successful didn't get that way by doing stupid things. Regardless of what the idiots in Washington say.
This is a government problem not a problem of the successful

[raymor]

We're STILL trying to hire the same guy I mentioned last month. Stupid government bureaucracy takes forever.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

the government wants the intelligent successful to waste their money "creating jobs" to make the government look good.
The intelligent successful didn't get that way by doing stupid things. Regardless of what the idiots in Washington say.
This is a government problem not a problem of the successful

Another words, tax breaks do not create jobs, they create more net revenues for the corps.

It would be amazing if one day you actually posted a solution rather than always bashing what you don't fully understand.

And truly, anyone that thinks it's okay to screw America(ns) over just to avoid making the Gov look good, shouldn't be allowed to be an American Citizen or own a Business here. That's about the most ass backwards failed logic, ever... really the logic is no better than that of a terrorist.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Again, it did that... it did it without question right at first, and much more, it just didn't do it as big as they wanted or for sure you expected.

Obama admits it didn't work, why can't you?

In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like ?the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,? realized too late that ?there?s no such thing as shovel-ready projects? and perhaps should have ?let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts? in the stimulus.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ward-and-back/

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Obama admits it didn't work, why can't you?

In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like ?the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,? realized too late that ?there?s no such thing as shovel-ready projects? and perhaps should have ?let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts? in the stimulus.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ward-and-back/

that makes no sense 40 percent of the stimulus was tax cuts and he has lowered taxes not raised them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html
The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Obama admits it didn't work, why can't you?

In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like ?the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,? realized too late that ?there?s no such thing as shovel-ready projects? and perhaps should have ?let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts? in the stimulus.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ward-and-back/

That article does not say anything about him admitting it didn't work.... however, I have seen him say it didn't work as well as they wanted, that it wasn't perfect, which is what he says in that article.

It already has been proven and can easily be shown again that it did create jobs and did save jobs... it simply did not do it as well as they expected.

As well, note the articles never say that once they saw the issues, they corrected them. That the same repeating patterns did not get repeated..... but hey, that's minor shit to the fact that it didn't 100% work.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to hire anyone unless they need employees.

Why would anyone "create" a job that isn't needed?

The entire economy needs to be brought back to life. THEN people will hire.

For instance...BFT3K, are YOU going to go hire two extra cameramen, a full time site designer and a guy to make promo materials for your sites?
NO.

You don't NEED them. But if you did NEED them you would hire them. Why waste money on shit you don't need.

I can only laugh when I see people on news programs complaining that big companies are "sitting on tons of cash".
IT'S THEIR MONEY. They can do with it what they want!

I agree 100%. No matter what incentives and tax breaks are offered, no one will be hiring.

As long as the largest corps can hire cheap overseas labor, they will. As long as all of our US companies are turning into multi-nationals, American jobs are irrelevant, especially when US workers make more than $1 p/hour, and we (rightfully) require ANY environmental restrictions or employee safety measures.

As long as 20% of the US population are unemployed, or under-employed, the demand for good and services here in the US will be lower than usual, making us a tough market for anyone selling average goods... or unnecessary things, like adult website memberships.

With the imbalance of wealth that we have now, the only 2 big markets for the US are either cheap Chinese crap and cheap foods, or super expensive niche items for the super rich.

The US has had numerous recessions. We have made it through all of them by allowing the government to (temporarily) grow and spend, to help create middle class jobs, to help pull us out. Every time, we have increased taxes as well. This time around however, we face 3 uphill battles:

1) Our debt is very high now, so many people do not want to dig any deeper.

2) Globalism has made the US living wage appear too high for most multi-national CEOs.

3) The 2 parties in DC refuse to compromise, no matter what, because they only care about their own power, and no longer answer to the American people.

There is much more to this, but I don't have too much time right now. Maybe I'll revisit this post later, to add more.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by tony286

that makes no sense 40 percent of the stimulus was tax cuts and he has lowered taxes not raised them.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html
The size of the proposed tax cuts -- which would account for about 40% of a stimulus package that could reach $775 billion over two years -- is greater than many on both sides of the aisle in Congress had anticipated. It may make it easier to win over Republicans who have stressed that any initiative should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending.

Hey not my words. Barry's!

Originally Posted by TheDoc

That article does not say anything about him admitting it didn't work.... however, I have seen him say it didn't work as well as they wanted, that it wasn't perfect, which is what he says in that article.

It already has been proven and can easily be shown again that it did create jobs and did save jobs... it simply did not do it as well as they expected.

As well, note the articles never say that once they saw the issues, they corrected them. That the same repeating patterns did not get repeated..... but hey, that's minor shit to the fact that it didn't 100% work.

OK, Let me ask you one thing, prove it saved jobs! You can't, which is convenient! LMAO

End result, he should have known that government regulation was going to keep the stimulus from working.

You can go on and on saying it worked, but the best you can do is say it kept it from getting worse, when there is no way or proving that, it's all conjecture.

And if it did work, why is Obama not saying that is worked before why not again with the new jobs bill and why did he call it somethiung different? Because it didn't work!

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to hire anyone unless they need employees.

Why would anyone "create" a job that isn't needed?

The entire economy needs to be brought back to life. THEN people will hire.

For instance...BFT3K, are YOU going to go hire two extra cameramen, a full time site designer and a guy to make promo materials for your sites?
NO.

You don't NEED them. But if you did NEED them you would hire them. Why waste money on shit you don't need.

I can only laugh when I see people on news programs complaining that big companies are "sitting on tons of cash".
IT'S THEIR MONEY. They can do with it what they want!

Yes I a agree. But I do hate to see a Big Company laying people off while showing massive profits at the same time.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

1) Our debt is very high now, so many people do not want to dig any deeper.

2) Globalism has made the US living wage appear too high for most multi-national CEOs.

3) The 2 parties in DC refuse to compromise, no matter what, because they only care about their own power, and no longer answer to the American people.

1) Obama seems to want to dig deeper

2) NAFTA needs to go away

3) I agree they don't compromise, Clinton had the same problem and got results with Newt
and Reagan had the same problems and got results with Tip. It's because of bad leadership more than you will admit

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Hey not my words. Barry's!



OK, Let me ask you one thing, prove it saved jobs! You can't, which is convenient! LMAO

End result, he should have known that government regulation was going to keep the stimulus from working.

You can go on and on saying it worked, but the best you can do is say it kept it from getting worse, when there is no way or proving that, it's all conjecture.

And if it did work, why is Obama not saying that is worked before why not again with the new jobs bill and why did he call it somethiung different? Because it didn't work!

here u go http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...67&emailView=1
I know you will say its not fox so it cant be true lol

[Sunny Day]

The Tea Party has asked all members to write businesses and stop all hiring until after Obama is out of office.

http://www.truth-out.org/tea-party-b...ing/1319203324


http://www.teapartynation.com/profil...msg_share_post


Talk about stupid fuckers

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

OK, Let me ask you one thing, prove it saved jobs! You can't, which is convenient! LMAO

End result, he should have known that government regulation was going to keep the stimulus from working.

You can go on and on saying it worked, but the best you can do is say it kept it from getting worse, when there is no way or proving that, it's all conjecture.

And if it did work, why is Obama not saying that is worked before why not again with the new jobs bill and why did he call it somethiung different? Because it didn't work!

Are you being Serious? We have proven that, over and over a gain on here... for damn sure when we focus on education jobs, that many States and Schools directly reported did help save jobs.

"Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill."
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did...s-create-jobs/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html
Schwarzenegger:
“Some of our colleagues are saying that it hasn’t done much, or was a waste of money,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said, sharing the stage with Mr. Biden. “Well, I would dispute that.”

He said the stimulus had created or saved more than 100,000 jobs in California, the most in the nation, more than half of which — 62,000 — were the jobs of teachers, professors and school administrators. Mr. Schwarzenegger noted that some people have questioned whether those teachers would actually have been laid off without the stimulus. “No, those teachers would have been gone, if it wouldn’t have been for the federal stimulus money,” he said.




He has said it worked, and he said it didn't work as well as they wanted, and that it had abuse at the State level which he can't legally control, and that they redirected the funds to better areas once they saw it didn't work... the man learned, and improved the money uses.

Why would he repeat the same mistakes, why wouldn't he do something different?

If it's a different bill, for sure because it does different things, it should have a different name.

P.S. I don't support the new jobs bill. I understand now that nothing he does will help, even if he had the solution, it would fail because others refuse to allow anything to work, all to make him fail.

[sperbonzo]

[cherrylula]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Obama admits it didn't work, why can't you?

In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like ?the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,? realized too late that ?there?s no such thing as shovel-ready projects? and perhaps should have ?let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts? in the stimulus.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ward-and-back/

This motherfucker just got in office.... now he already failed?

It's all one big show for those who want to get emotionally involved and bash/praise people. Like tv.

[cherrylula]

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

The Tea Party has asked all members to write businesses and stop all hiring until after Obama is out of office.

http://www.truth-out.org/tea-party-b...ing/1319203324


http://www.teapartynation.com/profil...msg_share_post


Talk about stupid fuckers

Are they using crayolas and ebonic spelling as usual?

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

The Tea Party has asked all members to write businesses and stop all hiring until after Obama is out of office.

http://www.truth-out.org/tea-party-b...ing/1319203324


http://www.teapartynation.com/profil...msg_share_post


Talk about stupid fuckers

I can't believe you guys are running around saying that the OWS is all a bunch of individuals with no organization, and that the media is picking out wackos just to discredit it.... and then you turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING! This is ONE PERSON posting a message on some little blog board, and suddenly it's "The Tea Party has asked all members..."???


I really can't believe that you are all such suckers as to complain about unfair tactics, painting a disorganised movement all with the same brush, and then doing the exact same thing to another movement. You really are just sheep sometimes.


.


.

[BFT3K]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I can't believe you guys are running around saying that the OWS is all a bunch of individuals with no organization, and that the media is picking out wackos just to discredit it.... and then you turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING! This is ONE PERSON posting a message on some little blog board, and suddenly it's "The Tea Party has asked all members..."???

I really can't believe that you are all such suckers as to complain about unfair tactics, painting a disorganised movement all with the same brush, and then doing the exact same thing to another movement. You really are just sheep sometimes..

I don't have time to search for this right now, but I recently read an article by a psychologist, suggesting that most people are actually born with a brain that is pre determinately biased.

If true, it explains why each side ignores the opposing viewpoint, as their political (social) positions have already been inbred.

How many people on GFY have EVER switched their polar position based upon reading ANYTHING the opposing side presents?

In the end, 90% of the members on this board claim they are Independent, but based upon the above assumptions, it is more likely that those who are REALLY Independent, is probably closer to 5%.... 10% maybe....

[Imortyl Pussycat]

plenty of jobs in adult that need good people ASAP: http://xindustryjobs.info/

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by tony286

here u go http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...67&emailView=1
I know you will say its not fox so it cant be true lol

After the BS the CBO published during the obama care BS, I don't trust a thing they say. And again, it's pretty hard to prove they saved jobs

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Are you being Serious? We have proven that, over and over a gain on here... for damn sure when we focus on education jobs, that many States and Schools directly reported did help save jobs.

"Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill."
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did...s-create-jobs/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html
Schwarzenegger:
?Some of our colleagues are saying that it hasn?t done much, or was a waste of money,? Mr. Schwarzenegger said, sharing the stage with Mr. Biden. ?Well, I would dispute that.?

He said the stimulus had created or saved more than 100,000 jobs in California, the most in the nation, more than half of which ? 62,000 ? were the jobs of teachers, professors and school administrators. Mr. Schwarzenegger noted that some people have questioned whether those teachers would actually have been laid off without the stimulus. ?No, those teachers would have been gone, if it wouldn?t have been for the federal stimulus money,? he said.




He has said it worked, and he said it didn't work as well as they wanted, and that it had abuse at the State level which he can't legally control, and that they redirected the funds to better areas once they saw it didn't work... the man learned, and improved the money uses.

Why would he repeat the same mistakes, why wouldn't he do something different?

If it's a different bill, for sure because it does different things, it should have a different name.

P.S. I don't support the new jobs bill. I understand now that nothing he does will help, even if he had the solution, it would fail because others refuse to allow anything to work, all to make him fail.

They won't work because he's a bad leader, he doen't know how to play well with others. If the first one had worked, he would be praising it and calling the jobs bill the Stimulus II

Ok, gotta love the quotes from Arnold, considering that asshole did this,
http://sfist.com/2010/09/13/schwarze..._a.php#photo-1
we need jobs and he's getting the bay bridge built in china?

Originally Posted by cherrylula

This motherfucker just got in office.... now he already failed?

It's all one big show for those who want to get emotionally involved and bash/praise people. Like tv.

Where did I get emotional? Take a pill and calm down, we're just having a discussion. It's friday and I'm gong to go thru a lot of rum tonight

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Another words, tax breaks do not create jobs, they create more net revenues for the corps.

It would be amazing if one day you actually posted a solution rather than always bashing what you don't fully understand.


And truly, anyone that thinks it's okay to screw America(ns) over just to avoid making the Gov look good, shouldn't be allowed to be an American Citizen or own a Business here. That's about the most ass backwards failed logic, ever... really the logic is no better than that of a terrorist.

wow. another topic you're clueless about.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I can't believe you guys are running around saying that the OWS is all a bunch of individuals with no organization, and that the media is picking out wackos just to discredit it.... and then you turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING! This is ONE PERSON posting a message on some little blog board, and suddenly it's "The Tea Party has asked all members..."???


I really can't believe that you are all such suckers as to complain about unfair tactics, painting a disorganised movement all with the same brush, and then doing the exact same thing to another movement. You really are just sheep sometimes.


.


.

dude, there's a reason you're where you are and they're where they are.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Robbie

... I can only laugh when I see people on news programs complaining that big companies are "sitting on tons of cash".
IT'S THEIR MONEY. They can do with it what they want!

That's true when "IT'S THEIR MONEY" ... However, when it's public corporations that have benefited from all of the largesses of taxpayer bail outs? Even if the money is repaid -- there should be no further moral obligation?

"We deserved to be bailed out, we are too pig to fail, now GFY! WE CAN DO IT TO YOU AGAIN" ... Some gratitude ...

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

They won't work because he's a bad leader, he doen't know how to play well with others. If the first one had worked, he would be praising it and calling the jobs bill the Stimulus II

Ok, gotta love the quotes from Arnold, considering that asshole did this,
http://sfist.com/2010/09/13/schwarze..._a.php#photo-1
we need jobs and he's getting the bay bridge built in china?



Where did I get emotional? Take a pill and calm down, we're just having a discussion. It's friday and I'm gong to go thru a lot of rum tonight

All you did was reverse what I said and ignore the truth that Republicans have refused to work with him, even on topics they've tried to push before. That's very far from him not working well with others, that's others totally refusing to do anything, which is exactly what is happening and happened from day one.

Well, the bill did work and past the jobs stuff, it worked very well and is still working today. So it doesn't look like he would call it the Stimulus II as it's a different bill all together.


You make it sound like it was all him and you ignore the amount of money saved, the hundreds of millions it would have cost a corp to produce it, and a bankrupt state, for a bridge they needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/bu...pagewanted=all

?I don?t think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together,? Brian A. Petersen, project director for the American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises joint venture, said in a telephone interview. ?Most U.S. companies don?t have these types of warehouses, equipment or the cash flow. The Chinese load the ships, and it?s their ships that deliver to our piers.?

"Despite the American union complaints, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, strongly backed the project and even visited Zhenhua?s plant last September, praising ?the workers that are building our Bay Bridge.?

"a 55-year-old steel polisher, is a typical Zhenhua worker. He arrives at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m., often working seven days a week. He lives in a company dorm and earns about $12 a day."

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

wow. another topic you're clueless about.

Originally Posted by TheDoc

It would be amazing if one day you actually posted a solution rather than always bashing what you don't fully understand.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

Nice...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=_PDeWyjEuZs

This guy is awesome

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

?I don?t think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together,? Brian A. Petersen, project director for the American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises joint venture, said in a telephone interview. ?Most U.S. companies don?t have these types of warehouses, equipment or the cash flow. The Chinese load the ships, and it?s their ships that deliver to our piers.?

"Despite the American union complaints, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, strongly backed the project and even visited Zhenhua?s plant last September, praising ?the workers that are building our Bay Bridge.?

"a 55-year-old steel polisher, is a typical Zhenhua worker. He arrives at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m., often working seven days a week. He lives in a company dorm and earns about $12 a day."

So you're ok with subsidizing US workers?

Let's look first at the cost question. The Times notes that 55-year old steel polisher Pan Zhongwang arrives at work at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m. seven days a week earning $12 a day and a bed in the company dorm. So the $400 million estimated saving is largely a result of cheap Chinese labor. But is that a pure saving? If California and/or the United States have no unemployed workers who could make steel or polish it or do fabrications, then it is a pure saving. But last time I looked both California and the United States have close to 10 percent reported unemployment and closer to 15 percent if we count part time workers who want full time work and those who have become discouraged from even looking for work. Now those unemployed workers get some unemployment compensation and their health care has to be paid for by public means if they can't pay it themselves, and the banks have to repossess their homes when they can't make the mortgage payments, and then states and the Feds have to bail out the banks. I can count way over $400 million in unemployment costs pretty quickly and that's without even considering the downward pressure on all wages in the United States that arises from the import of these low wage products in the midst of high unemployment. I mean, I guess we could have had a cheaper Golden Gate Bridge in 1937 if we had just brought over a bunch of Chinese workers to do the job. But that would have defeated the purpose of building the bridge which was a major project in the effort to cut U.S. unemployment in the midst of the Depression.

Then there is the issue of American capability. I wonder how the Chinese got these capabilities that Americans apparently no longer have. It was by building their own projects for themselves and developing the capabilities. Twenty years ago China didn't have companies that could do most of this kind of work. But the Chinese didn't call the Americans in to build their bridges for them. They invested in developing the capacities necessary to build their own bridges. That's what we did when we built the Golden Gate. People and corporations learn by doing and if they don't do they don't learn and they don't invest and then they can never do.

And the cost of never being able to do is extremely high - a lot more than $400 million. So I say the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is not only not inexpensive. It's going to cost us a fortune.

How apt that this was all carried out by the Terminator. It's definitely going to terminate a lot of California and American jobs, companies, and skills.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

So you're ok with subsidizing US workers?

Let's look first at the cost question. The Times notes that 55-year old steel polisher Pan Zhongwang arrives at work at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m. seven days a week earning $12 a day and a bed in the company dorm. So the $400 million estimated saving is largely a result of cheap Chinese labor. But is that a pure saving? If California and/or the United States have no unemployed workers who could make steel or polish it or do fabrications, then it is a pure saving. But last time I looked both California and the United States have close to 10 percent reported unemployment and closer to 15 percent if we count part time workers who want full time work and those who have become discouraged from even looking for work. Now those unemployed workers get some unemployment compensation and their health care has to be paid for by public means if they can't pay it themselves, and the banks have to repossess their homes when they can't make the mortgage payments, and then states and the Feds have to bail out the banks. I can count way over $400 million in unemployment costs pretty quickly and that's without even considering the downward pressure on all wages in the United States that arises from the import of these low wage products in the midst of high unemployment. I mean, I guess we could have had a cheaper Golden Gate Bridge in 1937 if we had just brought over a bunch of Chinese workers to do the job. But that would have defeated the purpose of building the bridge which was a major project in the effort to cut U.S. unemployment in the midst of the Depression.

Then there is the issue of American capability. I wonder how the Chinese got these capabilities that Americans apparently no longer have. It was by building their own projects for themselves and developing the capabilities. Twenty years ago China didn't have companies that could do most of this kind of work. But the Chinese didn't call the Americans in to build their bridges for them. They invested in developing the capacities necessary to build their own bridges. That's what we did when we built the Golden Gate. People and corporations learn by doing and if they don't do they don't learn and they don't invest and then they can never do.

And the cost of never being able to do is extremely high - a lot more than $400 million. So I say the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is not only not inexpensive. It's going to cost us a fortune.

How apt that this was all carried out by the Terminator. It's definitely going to terminate a lot of California and American jobs, companies, and skills.

Yes and No... If it's to save money on actual business being done, then yes of course. If it's to fire employees just to move and hire slave labor, even more so when they're already showing massive profits, just to make your stock values go up even more, then hell no.


You're ignoring the fact that we don't even have a way to build the thing, that we would have to fund an entire company with our tax dollars to even build it, then pay to still have it built.

Back then we had a way to build it, today we are not a manufacturing based economy, people need to get over the past and focus on what we do today.

It has become this way because of.... greed, nothing more and nothing less. Manufacturing corps saw they could move over seas, and make more net profits by doing so. It had little to do with our labor costs here hurting them and more to do with them doing what all corporations naturally do, look for ways to reduce costs.

You should really read what you wrote again and, then think long and hard why you're against the Occupy movement.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

yes indeed, in motion to third world countries... job growth is awesome over there!

Yep, the Republicans prefer employing them and moaning that there's no jobs in the US anymore.

IN 1970 China was in the hands of Chairman Mao and his Red Army guards. Industry had been dismantled to near 0, people were starving and the place was a mess. 40 years on thanks to the US President who signed them up with a trade agreement, they produce so much they can loan money to the us. To keep it afloat.

Vendzilla is spot on. The jobs that were exported also took a lot of wealth with them. Wealth that had to be found. So found where?

Banking. So please kick those "OWS Clowns" in the head and make them see some sense. If the banking was in China they would be starving.

Technology, Microsoft, Apple, etc. Look at the box and see where they're made. How long before the programs are wrote in China by Microrice and Chopsuey? You get what I mean.

Take a minute to look around and find a "Made in the USA" label on something. It might take more than a minute, so give up after 10. In 10 years time you won't even bother looking.

Can you believe the US used to export more than it imported? This goes for the EU as well.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Yes and No... If it's to save money on actual business being done, then yes of course. If it's to fire employees just to move and hire slave labor, even more so when they're already showing massive profits, just to make your stock values go up even more, then hell no.


You're ignoring the fact that we don't even have a way to build the thing, that we would have to fund an entire company with our tax dollars to even build it, then pay to still have it built.

Back then we had a way to build it, today we are not a manufacturing based economy, people need to get over the past and focus on what we do today.

It has become this way because of.... greed, nothing more and nothing less. Manufacturing corps saw they could move over seas, and make more net profits by doing so. It had little to do with our labor costs here hurting them and more to do with them doing what all corporations naturally do, look for ways to reduce costs.

You should really read what you wrote again and, then think long and hard why you're against the Occupy movement.

I worked high rise construction for several years in down town LA, we can build anything.

The cost of a bloated government over regulating job growth and then making a path for China to become a preferred trade partner by those in the bloated government are to blame, they let the Manufacturing corps move over seas and make it profitable.

Sorry you consider the work force in the US as not capible of manufacturing anything anymore, I guess it happened fast after Clinton passed NAFTA didn't it?

But according to you it's too late, we can't do anything about it. Thats pretty sad.

Use to be the US was about US jobs, Obama has proven thats not the case anymore.

In 1982, of course thats under the president no one on this board liked, Harley Davidson got a special taraff on heavy motorcycles to help Harley complete. They did, supplied a lot of jobs and even had them cancel the special tariff a head of schedule.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yep, the Republicans prefer employing them and moaning that there's no jobs in the US anymore.

IN 1970 China was in the hands of Chairman Mao and his Red Army guards. Industry had been dismantled to near 0, people were starving and the place was a mess. 40 years on thanks to the US President who signed them up with a trade agreement, they produce so much they can loan money to the us. To keep it afloat.

Vendzilla is spot on. The jobs that were exported also took a lot of wealth with them. Wealth that had to be found. So found where?

Banking. So please kick those "OWS Clowns" in the head and make them see some sense. If the banking was in China they would be starving.

Technology, Microsoft, Apple, etc. Look at the box and see where they're made. How long before the programs are wrote in China by Microrice and Chopsuey? You get what I mean.

Take a minute to look around and find a "Made in the USA" label on something. It might take more than a minute, so give up after 10. In 10 years time you won't even bother looking.

Can you believe the US used to export more than it imported? This goes for the EU as well.

Lol, nobody is asking, wanting, or expecting banks to move to China... Lol.


Yes, we export less but at a higher cost and import more but at lower costs. 50 years ago the combined total of income from this was less than 10% gdp, and in recent years it's 25% or over. Our economy grew because of the shift.

It's only logical that after ww2, the U.S. would become the industrial power house of the world, we were one of the only few standing countries that could produce anything at any volume. Thus we did.... but once the rest of the world started to rebuild, we had competition - even before China, the shift started to happen.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

This motherfucker just got in office.... now he already failed?

At what point does he reach the point that he did not "just get in office?"

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I worked high rise construction for several years in down town LA, we can build anything.

The cost of a bloated government over regulating job growth and then making a path for China to become a preferred trade partner by those in the bloated government are to blame, they let the Manufacturing corps move over seas and make it profitable.

Sorry you consider the work force in the US as not capible of manufacturing anything anymore, I guess it happened fast after Clinton passed NAFTA didn't it?

But according to you it's too late, we can't do anything about it. Thats pretty sad.

Use to be the US was about US jobs, Obama has proven thats not the case anymore.

In 1982, of course thats under the president no one on this board liked, Harley Davidson got a special taraff on heavy motorcycles to help Harley complete. They did, supplied a lot of jobs and even had them cancel the special tariff a head of schedule.

You put buildings together, exactly like American construction workers will be doing with the bridge. You did not make the I-beams, or already set joists. You didn't create the earthquake stuff in the building.... you put it together though.

We have limits on what we can manufacture, that's just a fact.

No, I never said it was too late for anything.

Odd, I remember jobs being gone well before Obama took office, then I remember the plunge stopping once he did get into office, and slightly going down overtime as well..... seems you're confused again. It took Reagan two terms as well.


Great for HD, that still happens today, in various ways. So if a company wanted to step up like HD and do that, they would... but it's not like the Gov is just going to hand some company money and say go build a bridge.

[JenniDahling]

If we(the US) were smart, we'd put more money and effort into technology based education. There is a global need and shortage for good programmers, and it's the emerging countries that are keen to this. But most employers want in house staff, so that leaves a huge gap for the rest of the developed nations.

The jobs are out there, I just think a lot of the unemployed are also obsolete in their skills. Education is too expensive, and now they're allowing illegal immigrants to enter college, taking space away from legitimate tax payers or their kids. Fuck the corporate stimulus, we need money in the educational system.