CNN: Layoffs vrs. Lack of Hiring... The Real Problem

[sbark]

Why has this recession generated such bad job opening rates? Isidore quotes Robert Brusca of FAO Economics as saying that “fear is running the show right now,” and small wonder. Instead of trying to calm the nation, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have transformed themselves into Chicken Littles, abandoning FDR’s “All we have to fear is fear itself” in favor of “We’re all going to DIE!”

We read plenty about large layoffs by firms in financial trouble in the economic crisis, but CNN’s Chris Isidore says we mostly miss the real problem in labor in this crisis. Hiring has dropped to decade-long lows, and while that may sound redundant, Isidore says the subtle difference makes a difference in how we need to approach the problem:

But the real problem in the U.S. labor market today isn’t layoffs. It’s a hiring freeze that is gripping most work places - and has not gotten nearly as much attention as the job cuts.
“The hiring rate has caved. That’s why the job market is as bad as it is,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody’s Economy.com. “Given this low hiring rate, unemployment would still rise even if layoffs were falling.” …
During the last recession in 2001, there was not nearly as sharp a drop in hiring and job openings. In fact, the hiring and job opening rates, which compare new hires and openings to the overall number of workers, are both at their lowest level on record.
And economists say that even if the number of layoffs peaks soon, the pace of hiring and job openings may remain soft for months to come.

The proper salve for a lack of job creation would be an infusion of capital into the markets. The failure of businesses normally creates openings for small start-ups to take their place, or for innovators to find new solutions to new problems and bring them to market. The Obama administration should encourage capital to come to market by lowering the risk cost through cuts in the capital-gains tax rates, or eliminating them entirely, for the next four years.
That will create jobs and expand opportunity, and would balance the layoffs of firms that had shaky business models even before the latest financial crisis. In fact, that’s why the 2000-1 recession managed to absorb the dot-com bubble collapse as well as the 9/11 attack collapse so well. The Bush administration lowered taxes and kept capital working to create jobs. Instead, the Obama administration wants to re-create the WPA, digging ditches just to refill them later, and paying for it by eventually seizing the capital that could have created real, long-term employment.

[ninja]

I'd hate to be graduating from college this spring. Anyone in those shoes and can share their experience with college interviewing now?

On the bright side, I heard even recently graduated lawyers are having a hard time finding work.

[CowboyPrincess]

I'm amazed that CNN is calling them chicken littles. I had to look again and make sure it was CNN and not something like FoxNews.

I guess the honeymoon IS over

[MetalHead]

Originally Posted by CowboyPrincess

I'm amazed that CNN is calling them chicken littles. I had to look again and make sure it was CNN and not something like FoxNews.

I guess the honeymoon IS over

Oh hello Blondie...

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by CowboyPrincess

I'm amazed that CNN is calling them chicken littles. I had to look again and make sure it was CNN and not something like FoxNews.

I guess the honeymoon IS over

They aren't this is the dufus OP's own nonsense.

His effort here is probably ban worthy. Its basically just lying. He made his own article and used CNN for the headline to get views.

His linked article is hardly so mentally challenged.
FWIW the job losses are at the highest rate since 1974. So that is a very real problem. Especially since it is job losses that scare the bejesus out of people with jobs who usually spend.

As companies start laying off employees who don't get laid off go into bunker mode as well. They stop spending. That lack of spending means less revenue at the companies and more layoffs.

[DIAF]

I graduated right before 9/11. And that was miserable. This is going to be worse.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by ninja

I'd hate to be graduating from college this spring. Anyone in those shoes and can share their experience with college interviewing now?

On the bright side, I heard even recently graduated lawyers are having a hard time finding work.

Lawyers almost always have tough times in the first few years unless you went to a bell cow school or interned. The good news for them is they ramp up quite quickly after that. There is a reason there are so many former lawyers....

I was accepted to law school but never attended because I ended up making more than starting lawyers on average. I couldn't see doing 3 years of law school and another 3 or 4 of drudge work to just break even.

College kids better have some work experience because in a bad market education is the least desired trait in most fields. If you went to an Ivy League school you'd still be fine but most college grads will not walk out into the real world claiming good jobs.

[Rogah]

Originally Posted by jterrell

They aren't this is the dufus OP's own nonsense.

His effort here is probably ban worthy.

It is interesting that you make that observation. I don't think there is anything in the OP's post which is ban worthy but, while I am no moderator, I think the following comments are probably more along those lines:

"this is the dufus OP's own nonsense"
"the hilarity here is your post and your user name."
"i love how mentally challenged the right can be."
"This post is honestly sad. It is an example of how internet reading can make one retarded."
"Only the biggest idiot in the world would suggest Bill Gates is going to hire more people if he gets a tax cut."

Do you think calling Obama, Reid and Pelosi "chicken little" approaches your own level of venom and bile?

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Rogah

It is interesting that you make that observation. I don't think there is anything in the OP's post which is ban worthy but, while I am no moderator, I think the following comments are probably more along those lines:

"this is the dufus OP's own nonsense"
"the hilarity here is your post and your user name."
"i love how mentally challenged the right can be."
"This post is honestly sad. It is an example of how internet reading can make one retarded."
"Only the biggest idiot in the world would suggest Bill Gates is going to hire more people if he gets a tax cut."

Do you think calling Obama, Reid and Pelosi "chicken little" approaches your own level of venom and bile?

I think my insults are probably a little less litigation liable than lying about what a quoted sources says. Especially when the misrepresentation gets played out in the very thread and the OP never corrects it. I'd be far more concerned as a site owner of letters from lawyers than hurt feelings in a forum where insults are basically the order of the day.

[Rogah]

Originally Posted by jterrell

I think my insults are probably a little less litigation liable than lying about what a quoted sources says.

Ah, but that's not what I asked. Keeping in mind that personal insults are not considered acceptable, I asked you which comments are more ban worthy, yours or his?

Originally Posted by jterrell

Especially when the misrepresentation gets played out in the very thread and the OP never corrects it. I'd be far more concerned as a site owner of letters from lawyers than hurt feelings in a forum where insults are basically the order of the day.

I don't think this is even a remote chance whatsoever of there being a shred of legal liability in an individual posting his interpretation of a CNN article, espcially since I am not seeing anything in his words that constitutes being a "misrepresentation."

Do you honestly believe CNN lawyers are trolling around political forums looking to sue people who post level headed reactions to CNN articles? Can you name a single instance in this history of the internet of such a thing actually happening?

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by Rogah

Ah, but that's not what I asked. Keeping in mind that personal insults are not considered acceptable, I asked you which comments are more ban worthy, yours or his?
I don't think this is even a remote chance whatsoever of there being a shred of legal liability in an individual posting his interpretation of a CNN article, espcially since I am not seeing anything in his words that constitutes being a "misrepresentation."

Do you honestly believe CNN lawyers are trolling around political forums looking to sue people who post level headed reactions to CNN articles? Can you name a single instance in this history of the internet of such a thing actually happening?

Web sites have and will continue to send out numerous cease and desist letters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize CNN does as well. The most recent one I recall was CNN telling youtube to pull some video.

This site has had to ask numerous times to stop insults and flames. It occurs when things get particularly bad for a good deal of time. 1 letter of concern from another site tho gets a sticky on page 1 with a notice of guaranteed ban immediately. Wonder why the difference in response?

[Rogah]

Originally Posted by jterrell

Web sites have and will continue to send out numerous cease and desist letters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize CNN does as well. The most recent one I recall was CNN telling youtube to pull some video.

Do you have the article where you read about that? Sounds to me like it was probably a copyright infringement issue, which YouTubers frequently run into, which is a whole separate ball of wax.

As far as I know, this forum allows users to cut-and-paste entire articles from websites (if I was running the site, that is the one policy I might recommend changing). So I don't see a single thing in the OP's post that could be considered ban-worthy or opening the site up to litigation.

[vta]

Originally Posted by Rogah

Do you have the article where you read about that? Sounds to me like it was probably a copyright infringement issue, which YouTubers frequently run into, which is a whole separate ball of wax.

As far as I know, this forum allows users to cut-and-paste entire articles from websites (if I was running the site, that is the one policy I might recommend changing). So I don't see a single thing in the OP's post that could be considered ban-worthy or opening the site up to litigation.

He posted an opposing political opinion. Had it been favorable to the current administration, while degrading the former, it would be a well written tome to progressive American thinking.

Just leave it at that.

[Jon88]

Originally Posted by ninja

I'd hate to be graduating from college this spring. Anyone in those shoes and can share their experience with college interviewing now?

On the bright side, I heard even recently graduated lawyers are having a hard time finding work.

I'm graduating this summer if all goes as planned. My boss's partner has a company in Dallas and I would love to transfer there from Shreveport. And by the way, the job market here is not bad at all. I've probably seen 20 different out of town plates in the last week or so. Louisiana really hasn't been hit, but then again we don't have that far to fall.

[sbark]

This is where the litigation dollars should be invested

the infamous Fannie Mae You Tube vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

say by the way.........was not Fannie Mae basically a "targeted stimulus bill"???
....we see how that worked out......govt tries to cure one of their crisis's with creation of another deffered crisis.....

No edits on OP........quote marks were specifically around the last line of the CNN article...........no quotes around chicken little........There was a "." in between......no worse than Geitner blaming his troubles on Turbo Tax.....