Occupy Wall Street protest

[BluegrassCat]

This is an excerpt from the article:

Many companies are reporting thatbusiness is improving, but that’s not necessarily translating into new jobs. A survey of chief executives, released in June by the trade group Business Roundtable, found that 87 percent expect sales to increase in the coming six months. But just around half said they expected to add jobs during that period.

So based on this survey last June (which admittedly is just one survey), CEO's see sales IMPROVING (which directly contradicts your assertion that poor sales is why companies are not hiring).

They go on to state (as one of the reasons):

When asked why they aren’t hiring, you’ll often hear the word “uncertainties.” Those range from not knowing whether taxes might increase at some point to worries about how health care reform could add to employee costs in the future.

Nothing here "directly contradicts" what I've said, rather it supports it quite clearly. CEO's see sales improving and thus are looking to hire more and spend more, exactly what I've been saying would happen. & Btw the more recent survey has expected improving sales at 65% and expected hiring at 35% showing a pretty clear and significant relationship between the two (As expected demand drops so does anticipated hiring). There's been no new regulations or taxes since then to otherwise explain this drop which directly contradicts what you've said. Again you cite the 1 out of 7 reasons which is an unsourced anecdote with no evidence to back it up. If there was truly a LOT of evidence you wouldn't be hanging your hat on this fairly flimsy piece.

[hard4janira]

Nothing here "directly contradicts" what I've said, rather it supports it quite clearly. CEO's see sales improving and thus are looking to hire more and spend more, exactly what I've been saying would happen. & Btw the more recent survey has expected improving sales at 65% and expected hiring at 35% showing a pretty clear and significant relationship between the two (As expected demand drops so does anticipated hiring). There's been no new regulations or taxes since then to otherwise explain this drop which directly contradicts what you've said. Again you cite the 1 out of 7 reasons which is an unsourced anecdote with no evidence to back it up. If there was truly a LOT of evidence you wouldn't be hanging your hat on this fairly flimsy piece.

I suppose you can refute the survey if you wish as 'anecdotal'. I'll take it at face value and assume that the CEO's interviewed were telling the truth and that the survey is an accurate reflection of their strategies (I can't say that the CEO's interviewed represent a good sample because I don't know what industries they cross referenced etc..).

But based on that: If 87% see improving sales but only 35% plan on hiring, then there must be a reason why there isn't MORE hiring given the improving outlook. The article highlights those reasons and supports my argument that one of the reasons that companies are not hiring is because of uncertainty about the regulatory climate, taxes, and costs assoicated with health care. You said that you couldn't find ANY evidence that this was true, I am saying that this article indicates otherwisse. Again, you can dismiss the survey as anecdotal if you like (on what grounds you would do this I am not sure).

But think about if even for a minute: If the survey is a good sample and we could extrapolate that 80+% of CEO's see improving sales in the future - then why is unemployment still over 9%? I agree with your basic premise that an improved outlook is one reason why companies grow and hire, but it is NOT the only reason. Therefore, you can't simply say that poor sales is the ONLY reason why companies aren't hiring and unemployment remains above 9%.

There are a great many other factors as well (uncertainty is just one of them). I think another factor is simply that large companies are growing but they are growing overseas. This creates demand for jobs, unfortunately they are non-domestic jobs. This is different from 'off-shoring' jobs. For example, if Coors brewing company wants to increase distribution in Asia it will have to build warehouses and employee people abroad to store and transport the product etc... These jobs necessarily cannot be created in the United States. That is just one example of what I am talking about. Of course, this doesn't necessarity apply to small or medium business that doesn't have an international market.

[hard4janira]

Steve Wynn, a Democrat, explains clearly on a corporate conference call EXACTLY why he's sitting on his capital. It is a fear of Obama, the regulatory environment, and escallating healt care costs. This guy talks to other CEO's and he isn't the ony one who feels this way.

Somebody should explain to me why Steve Wynn would say these things if they weren't true or he didn't believe them.

[BluegrassCat]

I suppose you can refute the survey if you wish as 'anecdotal'. I'll take it at face value and assume that the CEO's interviewed were telling the truth and that the survey is an accurate reflection of their strategies (I can't say that the CEO's interviewed represent a good sample because I don't know what industries they cross referenced etc..).

But based on that: If 87% see improving sales but only 35% plan on hiring, then there must be a reason why there isn't MORE hiring given the improving outlook. The article highlights those reasons and supports my argument that one of the reasons that companies are not hiring is because of uncertainty about the regulatory climate, taxes, and costs assoicated with health care. You said that you couldn't find ANY evidence that this was true, I am saying that this article indicates otherwisse. Again, you can dismiss the survey as anecdotal if you like (on what grounds you would do this I am not sure).

But think about if even for a minute: If the survey is a good sample and we could extrapolate that 80+% of CEO's see improving sales in the future - then why is unemployment still over 9%? I agree with your basic premise that an improved outlook is one reason why companies grow and hire, but it is NOT the only reason. Therefore, you can't simply say that poor sales is the ONLY reason why companies aren't hiring and unemployment remains above 9%.

There are a great many other factors as well (uncertainty is just one of them). I think another factor is simply that large companies are growing but they are growing overseas. This creates demand for jobs, unfortunately they are non-domestic jobs. This is different from 'off-shoring' jobs. For example, if Coors brewing company wants to increase distribution in Asia it will have to build warehouses and employee people abroad to store and transport the product etc... These jobs necessarily cannot be created in the United States. That is just one example of what I am talking about. Of course, this doesn't necessarity apply to small or medium business that doesn't have an international market.

First of all, the comparison was 87% expected growth in sales and 51% expected to increase employment in June and more recently the comparison is 65% expected sales growth and 35% expect job growth so the relationship between expected demand and expected hiring is quite strong. These numbers are from the business roundtable survey.
This quote:
When asked why they aren’t hiring, you’ll often hear the word “uncertainties.” Those range from not knowing whether taxes might increase at some point to worries about how health care reform could add to employee costs in the future.
is not sourced to anyone, it's not clear whether it's from the survey or just the author's assertion. That's why it's not evidence.

And I'm looking at this from the point of view of diagnosing the biggest problems with the economy in order to fix them. So demand is clearly the biggest problem and requires the focus of legislators and the Fed. Conversely, regulatory uncertainty may play some role, we can't ever rule it out completely, but the case is so weak that focusing on it rather than demand amounts to little more than a distraction from the real issue. Now if there's some evidence that regulatory/tax uncertainty is as important, point me to it but I have seen no evidence that it is nearly as important.

[hard4janira]

Here's a good video to watch.

I like that video.

[hard4janira]

First of all, the comparison was 87% expected growth in sales and 51% expected to increase employment in June and more recently the comparison is 65% expected sales growth and 35% expect job growth so the relationship between expected demand and expected hiring is quite strong. These numbers are from the business roundtable survey.

Where do you get the second set of numbers (65 / 35)? I didn't see that - is that from another source?

is not sourced to anyone, it's not clear whether it's from the survey or just the author's assertion. That's why it's not evidence.

You're nit-picking a bit here. I think its rather obvious that the author is citing examples given by the CEO's as 'uncertanties' if you read it closely.

And I'm looking at this from the point of view of diagnosing the biggest problems with the economy in order to fix them. So demand is clearly the biggest problem and requires the focus of legislators and the Fed. Conversely, regulatory uncertainty may play some role, we can't ever rule it out completely, but the case is so weak that focusing on it rather than demand amounts to little more than a distraction from the real issue. Now if there's some evidence that regulatory/tax uncertainty is as important, point me to it but I have seen no evidence that it is nearly as important.

Why is weakened demand bad? If the economy was overheating because of too much credit (and subsequent consumer debt) then it doesn't make sense to try and artificially stimulate demand. This will only lead to consumers taking on more debt that they cannot afford. The recession is telling us that the consumers are DONE, they are finished. It's time for private debt to go down in this country and for savings to go up. The response to a lack of demand has been necessary and it has been deflation. Demand will only go up when consumers have renewed faith. That means less debt, a stable housing market (which still needs to find the bottom) and a sense of financial/job security. The idea that the Federal reserve or the Goverment can force demand by pumping trillions into the market is absurd. Nobody wants it. Banks are sitting on gobs of cash but they aren't lending. America is over-leveraged and borrowed-out. And what good did the first round of 'stimulus' do? A trillion dollars for what? Where are the jobs? And what good has the Fed done with QE1 and QE2? They are causing inflation in food and energy prices and hurting the very people who would benefit from deflation - the lower and middle class (if they had jobs). Now people are stuck without jobs and rising food prices. Nice work Bernanke.

(I snatched this off Ritholtz blog)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-cont...11/11/meat.jpg

[Stavros]

I think it is weird for Steve Wynn to argue that nothing will change until 'weird' Barack Obama goes and takes his 'uncertainties' with him, that capitalists will just sit on their capital and not spend. He seems to think that the President controls everything, when Obama has had problems with Congress, which is where the real meat is put in the sandwich of American law and policy. The point Obama makes about redistribution is a populist one that taps into the issue of the day -why people who work for $30,000 a year don't get a bonus when people who work for $30m a year do. Populism doesn't always make good policy, but it sounds good. Uncertainty is the mantra of the age, Obama didn't create it, he inherited it, and if he and his advisers dont really know whats going to happen in the next five years, nobody does -we get the usual bullshit from the Coalition govt in the UK about growth being 'on track' that the cuts which are sacking thousands of public servants are 'painful but necessary' and so on.

The fundamental premise, that jobs being done in central and local govt can be provided by the private sector and thus relieve tax payers of a bloated wage bill, is false: a) the jobs either don't exist in the private sector; or b) the ones that do are not moving, not enough businesses are hiring people to reduce unemployment and raise tax revenues. I dont see how President Obama can be held responsible for all of that any more than we can blame Cameron, Clegg and Osborne who are making a dog's mess out of the scraps left behind by Blair and Brown.

And what, anyway, is the alternative? We are in the sailor's equivalent of the doldrums, and until the winds pick up, we are stranded in the middle of the ocean.

[BluegrassCat]

Where do you get the second set of numbers (65 / 35)? I didn't see that - is that from another source?



You're nit-picking a bit here. I think its rather obvious that the author is citing examples given by the CEO's as 'uncertanties' if you read it closely.



Why is weakened demand bad? If the economy was overheating because of too much credit (and subsequent consumer debt) then it doesn't make sense to try and artificially stimulate demand. This will only lead to consumers taking on more debt that they cannot afford. The recession is telling us that the consumers are DONE, they are finished. It's time for private debt to go down in this country and for savings to go up. The response to a lack of demand has been necessary and it has been deflation. Demand will only go up when consumers have renewed faith. That means less debt, a stable housing market (which still needs to find the bottom) and a sense of financial/job security. The idea that the Federal reserve or the Goverment can force demand by pumping trillions into the market is absurd. Nobody wants it. Banks are sitting on gobs of cash but they aren't lending. America is over-leveraged and borrowed-out. And what good did the first round of 'stimulus' do? A trillion dollars for what? Where are the jobs? And what good has the Fed done with QE1 and QE2? They are causing inflation in food and energy prices and hurting the very people who would benefit from deflation - the lower and middle class (if they had jobs). Now people are stuck without jobs and rising food prices. Nice work Bernanke.

(I snatched this off Ritholtz blog)

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-cont...11/11/meat.jpg

The other numbers are from the business roundtable website
http://businessroundtable.org/news-c...nomic-outlook/

I don't think it's nitpicking at all, when the author is quoting people she indicates it by using quotations or by attribution (said Maryland). Even if it's from the survey we have no idea how many people said this or how important they thought it was. So it's mostly a useless quote.

Weakened demand is bad because high unemployment is bad. If we disagree on high unemployment being bad, there's no point in discussing it further, we have irreconcilable views. Since the crash debt has decreased and savings have increased but still the economy is stalled. Inflation is what we need because that would diminish the remaining debt, helping the poor middle class the most and spurring our trade competitiveness while conversely deflation punishes the poor/middle class the most. The problem is we don't have any inflation. The too small stimulus was hugely successful in staving off disaster but more was needed. QE tripled the money base and still no inflation. A Keynesian model predicts this, while an Austrian doesn't.

Low demand is the biggest problem and the answer to getting the economy back on track is clearly fiscal stimulus coupled with more a active role by the Fed.

[hard4janira]

I think it is weird for Steve Wynn to argue that nothing will change until 'weird' Barack Obama goes and takes his 'uncertainties' with him, that capitalists will just sit on their capital and not spend. He seems to think that the President controls everything, when Obama has had problems with Congress, which is where the real meat is put in the sandwich of American law and policy.

True, congress is very responsible for the current political and economic climate as well. Obamacare was as much a liberal congress as it was Obama. Obama does have the ability to circumvent congress with executive orders through agencies such as the FDA and the EPA, and he's using them. I think the rhetoric from Obama doesn't help much either (i.e. corporations are bad, corporations that go offshore should be punished, corporations don't pay their fair share, corporations should get sued if they are discriminating against unemployed people). It creates a very negative business climate.

The point Obama makes about redistribution is a populist one that taps into the issue of the day -why people who work for $30,000 a year don't get a bonus when people who work for $30m a year do. Populism doesn't always make good policy, but it sounds good.

The problem with Obama is that he campaigns as a populist but he tries to govern as a progressive. That angers people and it is largely why the tea-party movement came to be, IMO. I'm tired of the class warfare in this country. It is perpetuated by the left who pander to the have-not's. The problem with the liberals is that they are not satisfied with equal opportunity. Equal opportunity is never enough; what they want is equl outcomes, and re-distribution of wealth is the only way to accomplish this because many people do not have the intelligence or means or wherewithall to acheive great things on thier own. Not everybody can or will sit at the head of the table, that's just the way it goes. Funny thing though, at least capitalism affords a free society the BEST opportunity to acheive wealth. Do these people honestly think that they would be better off financially if we were socialist or communist (or other)? Seriously, there are far fewer seats at the head of those tables.....

Uncertainty is the mantra of the age, Obama didn't create it, he inherited it, and if he and his advisers dont really know whats going to happen in the next five years, nobody does -we get the usual bullshit from the Coalition govt in the UK about growth being 'on track' that the cuts which are sacking thousands of public servants are 'painful but necessary' and so on.

He inherited it but he needs to step up and own it now, just as he said he would. Obama said that he would turn things around in 3 years and he was dead wrong. Now he has nothing but excuses and the line 'I'm better than the alternative'. Governments in the Western world need to shrink. They have been on an unsustainable path of growth and debt. Goverments are necessarily becoming smaller because they have to cut the massive debts that they have accumulated. Cutting government jobs IS painfull but it is also necessary. As I have said in the past, I believe that government should be limited to a % of GDP via a constitutional amendment.

The fundamental premise, that jobs being done in central and local govt can be provided by the private sector and thus relieve tax payers of a bloated wage bill, is false: a) the jobs either don't exist in the private sector; or b) the ones that do are not moving, not enough businesses are hiring people to reduce unemployment and raise tax revenues. I dont see how President Obama can be held responsible for all of that any more than we can blame Cameron, Clegg and Osborne who are making a dog's mess out of the scraps left behind by Blair and Brown.

It sounds cruel but necessity is the mother of all invention. This country has demand for jobs it just can't match skillsets to the needs. People need retraining to some extent and we need to better educate our workforce (it's very, very bad here in the U.S.) On the other hand, there are also jobs available here that poeple are too 'proud' to work (farm work/labor). Tighter immigration laws are opening a lot of these up (esp. in the South). I say if you are an unemployed worker with a limited skill set then you need to get your ass out in the field. At some point, unemployment benefits must run out and people must be forced to work. Permanent unemployment benefits creates a welfare class dependent on handouts who wont fill jobs that they think are beneath them.

[Brandi Boots]

the "movement" dosent even know what the movement is about....until 8 out of 10 people at the rallies can agree on why they are there, this is just a clusterfuk.