It's the Economy, stupid - Languishing & Lingering after the Great Recession

Of course, they can't admit to any of this, or they'd have to change their tired script.

Robert Reich: 3 biggest right-wing lies about poverty - Salon.com

 

This is something that I'm dealing with periodically.
And I actually resigned from a company for this.
No deaths...but heart attacks and strokes.

Just because it's in another country, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in the US or other post-industrial nations.
And the previous and ongoing economic troubles just exaggerate or encourage the matter.
As people hang on to jobs to make sure they are stable.

While it especially affects multi-shift jobs, 24/7 environs and such (nurses, truckers, production IT, etc...)
It can happen to any vertical or industry.

People aren't machines...and even machines break down. (but they don't die...or have chronic health issues after, in terrible pain)
And it may become even more significant as unions lose their power & influence, but that's just a percentage and a preventative.
Workers & Staff need to set their terms.
Pride doesn't replace health or prevent harm.

And companies don't need to even be doing it by intent...but just by neglect and dysfunction as needs are filled but resources aren't.
Take care of yourself.
The company will survive, you may not.

Pretty bad when they have a whole word dedicated to your death from overworking.

 

Actual good news everybody!

The Media and Corporations are finally actually "saying" that it's getting better. (not words like "lingering", "miasma", "struggling", etc... )

'bout fuckin' time...

Now they may actually start opening their purse-strings and REALLY start hiring people...investing. (not just sitting on their pot of dough)
Next at 11 - Retail Sales increase!! (who would have thought??)

• ADP Says Companies in U.S. Added Most Workers in June Since 2012
  
  
• Americans on the Road Again as Economic Recovery Gains Traction
  
  
• U.S. Companies Show Broad Recovery as Hiring Pace Surges

You mean when you don't constantly harp on how things aren't as good as they were before a recession,
that management actually stops being fearful and thinks about real growth???
Wonderful Idea!!

IMHO, the media is part of the reason for any lingering.
Their constant focus on negatives pour salt onto wounds.
Make many, if not most, business hide in their holes like the groundhog after seeing its shadow.

Thank God we've actually gotten to a time where the negative is the lame "old news"
and the positive is what is selling the headline.
Idiots.

 

And more "shocking" good news.
At least on the US front...I wonder how the other post-industrial nations are doing?
Can someone confirm??

Australia & Canada are rockin' good from what I understand. Is Japan still out of it...moving but not steaming??
Europe seems to be stable, but dealing with energy resources and unemployment. (England is a bit different, but not quite up to snuff at the moment)
The BRICs seem to be teetering...hindered by new corruptions and inadequate leadership.
Am I incorrect??

Anyways...your Big news of some good news.

• Payrolls Jumped as U.S. Jobless Rate Fell to 6.1% in June
  
  
• Trade Gap in U.S. Shrinks More Than Forecast on Record Exports
  
  
• Dow Average Tops 17,000 as Payrolls Rise Amid ECB Plans (and the S&P is close to 2000)
  
  
• U.S. Consumer Comfort Closes Strongest Quarter Since 2007

But I'm not seeing this translate into a raging job market yet,
stable and growing...but not raging.
And it also hasn't translated into employees having the advantage yet.
Increased wages, yes...but not like it was at the end of the 90's (serious benefits, options...and them hustling to keep YOU)

And as the last article notes...for some reason Gas, Food and other necessities keep rising.
Rent & Utilities are stable, but they're not going down and making it easier either.

 

Something's got to be wrong because I thought Obama was destroying the economy.

But seriously: The leading indicators have been there for a while now. Now they're being proven right.

And one factor that has likely contributed is the weak U.S. dollar. It's good for exports. But it hasn't been too weak so as to have a severe detrimental impact on importing from countries that the U.S. likes to import from when it comes to consumer goods.

The gas and food question is tied to oil prices, of course: We're back to over $100 a barrel, and prices didn't stay low for long after the financial crisis. Oil prices will remain a problem, and it's only when we shift away to other energy sources that we'll avoid future calamity tied to oil prices/availability.

 

Most realistic pundits say that speculators are keeping oil prices high so they can make their buck back.
Big oil is also likely inflating it to maximize profit in that they are going to start losing once natural gas comes forward and solar more viable.
The excuse of the Middle East wars is just that...they've been that way forever.

And actually the dollar is going up
Dollar Has Biggest Weeky Gain in Six on Faster Job Growth
I just think it's only losing ground vs. Canada...but Canada is rockin' just like the US and without the constant political battles. (at least not as bad)

I wonder how much is actually being distracted or missed out on as the US administration is in constant battle mode,
instead of focusing on internal goals and citizen needs.
Probably a lot...or am I just not remembering how bad it was in previous times?

 

This is interesting...and I wonder if we can get the economy back to where it's surging.

But I think that would take the corporations investing themselves...and the government doing the right thing.
Right now, everyone is lingering taking a "wait & see" attitude...if not directly/indirectly opposing movement.
So nothing gets done...except that which moves and improves on its own.

It's not "if" it will improve, but when.
It will do it sooner if leaders, both business & govt, act with intent NOT accident.

 

I don't know...

A part of me seems unable to look away from the prospect that things have changed permanently. What do Americans hope for? America of the 2000s? 1990s? 1980s? 1970s? Is any of that even possible?

Things have changed. China is getting big. Several Third World countries are high growth. The G8 is generally stable, and their trading partners benefit.

But can the planet take it?

Will we have enough oil for everyone? Will we have enough resources fuel the grown to BRIC and have enough left over for the rest of us?

This has had be thinking about that quaint idea of "perpetual growth."

A couple of articles that speak to what's on my mind:

The End of Growth Wouldn't Be the End of Capitalism - Noah Smith - The Atlantic

It's simple. If we can't change our economic system, our number's up | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

This particular bit sticks out:

I don't know what we're waiting for. What kind of America are you waiting for? The old one before the economic crisis? Is that even possible?

 

The context of what I said was within global capitalism, rather than the microeconomic decisions of individual companies. Most small businesses have little individual impact on the implications of global capitalism. It's only when you look at entire industries/sectors or even some of the mega multinationals that you can see the impact of what I'm getting at.

For example, the east coast of Canada has been struggling because of the obliteration of their call centre economy to, for the most part, India. When Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders kept demanding increasing wages to keep up with their costs, it eventually lead to this, given that India has been vying for this very business through educational and technological innovations. Companies are constantly keeping their eyes out for technological and other solutions for increasing efficiency, with is often a combination of increased productivity and reduced costs. This often comes at the cost of workers, considering labour costs often represent the larger categories of operational costs in a lot of companies.

This isn't to say that companies are "evil" (though some may be), it just happens to be the overall impact of global capitalism: a profit motive combined with global markets that are difficult to compete in when one country's workers want $12 an hour to get by while another country's workers are satisfied with $3.

What are Newfoundlanders to do? They can't accept wage cuts. They need to pay their bills (it's cold out there). So I guess they hope for growth in industries that pay more?

Huh... Fair and balanced.

Everyone has the opportunity to participate in capitalism, but liberals create leaches despite libertarianism being freedom.

I get it.

But seriously, physical labour now makes up a much smaller proportion of the economy than it has in the past. I guess it depends on what you mean by "physical labour."

I don't know what you mean by being actively discouraged from participating in markets or keeping people dependent. That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

(I'd ask for citations, but that, I think, would be opening up a can of worms. )

 

Your perspective fails to explain why the east coast of Canada no longer has a viable call centre economy.

We're speaking from different contexts, possibly.

Call centres in Canada disappeared because companies wanted to pay less, not more. They weren't worried about turnover. They were worried about finding a cheap source of people who could follow English scripts with a passable knowledge of English.

This is the impact of global capitalism. Many Maritime workers lost their jobs when these centres closed. What are the odds that they found higher-paying work following that?

Companies went after cheaper labour. The demand for decent wages for Maritime workers ultimately was at odds with these companies' profit motive: They wanted to save money on customer service, not pay more to keep talented Maritime workers from going to work somewhere else.

What I said isn't controversial. I don't see how it's misleading. It's par for the course.

 

For the record, that's related to what I said: "Corporations want to maximize profits. The way global capitalism current works, this is essentially at odds with the common worker's need for higher wages to afford a stable existence."

In the context of global capitalism, when operating in Canada, the only effective way to pay someone lower than a Newfoundlander (and to make a change worthwhile) is to move operations to a Third World country. This is tied to the profit motive: "How do we reduce our customer service costs?" In many ways, this has come at a cost of customer service quality, but ideally, this kind of decision is more about the bottom line than anything one may find in a mission statement posted somewhere.

Also, don't assume the corporation itself would be moving. Corporations rarely do everything in-house these days. I speak mainly about business-to-business operations that no longer exist because they didn't have a competitive advantage in areas with really cheap labour. In other words, if labour cost is the number one factor, if you can't pay below your region's minimum wage, you're screwed.

Not entirely, no. But that's beside the point, which is the fact that those seeking higher profits have often been at odds with those who seek higher wages. You can be a really good customer service rep in a call centre and provide world-class service, but if a company would rather pay a quarter of what they'd pay for your labour, you can't really compete with that.

I understand the counter-argument, but I think it missed the point. It seems to suggest that since one thing works in some instances, it perhaps applies in most instances, which isn't really true. Maybe you have some other ideas why deskilling happens, but I doubt you'd suggest it has nothing to do with profits and seeking lower costs of labour (which is my main point, again).

It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or a bad thing. What matters is that it happened, and it happens elsewhere. And I don't know where you get the idea that I expect corporations to act counter to this. You're projecting your perceptions of my value judgements in a statement that I made that's uncontroversial/objective. There is no reason to do that; it will only confuse the issue.

You can say that companies will pay more for more valuable labour/output, but saying that doesn't have to come at the cost of ignoring the very real issue of global capitalism enabling companies to maximize their profits by outsourcing or offshoring cheap labour. Yes, companies will pay more for highly skilled workers or highly knowledgeable workers who will help them make more money or whatever, but to suggest the former doesn't happen seems a bit odd. You know it happens, right?

I meant they were more concerned about saving on labour costs by paying below Canadian wages than they were about paying Canadians well enough to prevent turnover. When you shut down operations, turnover is no longer the issue; turnover is the goal.

 

Never mind. You're putting way more into this than what I said.

You're making huge assumptions.

In other words, you're arguing about something different.

 

I think you're putting the concept of Laissez Faire up on a pedestal a bit too much...it is not a catch-all either.
While I agree that strict centralized control is unnecessary if not a potential hindrance...organized cooperation between the larger nations is needed.
The "G" summits are significantly helpful.
And it is necessary that each country participate in sincerity and get their own house in order.

Government can be a hindrance or help.
If you don't act with intent...things happen by accident...usually bad, not good.
Understand, government acts as the provider of the stadium...and the refs.
Corporations while they need to be free enough to make their moves are playing on a bigger field...and not by themselves.
They impact the game...for good or ill.
And just like they need protective gear and rules...you also need some regulation and monitoring.
There is a balance.
Otherwise, unethical businesses will create havoc and damage in their own self-interests. Nor will they add to the game as a whole as well.

@Aceventura your article on emerging markets is "old-news"...they've been tracking and encouraging them for years.
Yet the BRIC nations and Middle East have serious issues too...where they may implode...and the shit hits the fan.
Some don't "play well with others"
They also have significant and damaging corruption...WAY more so than most of the larger post-industrial nations.
They are over-leveraging resources and not diversifying their efforts, focusing on narrow bubbles. (Real Estate, Oil, etc...)
IF they survive, IF they get their act together, then perhaps they'll truly emerge.
But right now they've got some BIG hurdles and serious clean-up to do.

Which is not to say the big players (G7) are perfect...and they found out, you cannot let it all go "free" to do as they will.
This was what The Great Recession was all about...and the impact is still here.
Banks cannot just do as they will.
Wall Street, "The City" and all Exchanges
The Fed, EU, Japan's Diet, etc...cannot just allow anything.
Over-indulgences, "irrational exuberance", self-interest that impacts others DO happen.

Too much Laissez Faire almost brought down the whole tamale. (Not just one nation, but globally)

Capitalism is the engine...yes, you do need oil & gas to make it run well.
Government are the safety features. - brakes, seat-belts, manuals, specs and more.
Businesses are needed...but they look out for their own.
Governments look out for the national interests...and hopefully protect the citizens.

I am neither liberal or conservative.
I take parts of both yours and @Baraka_Guru points and arguments. (sometimes it's like watching Heat Miser & Cold Miser...)
Both are needed.
But neither should throw the baby out with the bath water either.

Sorry, BG I don't espouse to your line of thinking either..."wouldn't it be nice" or lines of thought that lean more to Socialist ideals.
Capitalism is a harness...people by their nature are self-interested, at least ambitious ones are. And those "at the top" always are.
The other way has proven wrong or inadequate, because in the end...people don't share well...nor does it act as efficient. (ex. Communism)

Think of businesses like suns...concentrated matter that produces life-giving energy.
However, if done badly, it can go Nova or turn into a Black Hole.
Gravity helps produce this effect in space...Capitalism helps it in nations.

Growth & profit now is simply an indicator of productivity and an incentive.
It's not going away anytime soon...if it does...it will be centuries from now when the global economy is truly global under one roof.
(and hell, by then it won't be corps and nation-states competing, but planets and systems.)

You know money is an illusion. The Fed & other central banks know it.
But at the same time, it is not...it is a how people exchange services, pool resources, gain status.

I think you're over-worrying the capacity of the world to grow.
Resources will change...it is already changing.

So we need to balance it all.
Leverage the energy producing benefits of businesses and entities.
Get government to referee right and put up a good stadium.

Which is why you see me do both, lambasting the stupidity and corruption,
but also cheering the good signs of business and forward-thinking policy.

I just want to see a good game.
No foul play, no bad calls.
Just awesome moves, great seats and good food.

 

I don't know where you're getting "[my] line of thinking" from. I never even got into socialism. I'm only discussing the realities of capitalism: the impacts of global capital flows.

Maybe you guys are reading into my posts based on my post history. Other than that, I don't understand why you'd think these are my opinions or value judgements. These are textbook issues.

One of you "rejects my premise." The other "can't espouse my line of thinking."

This isn't my premise. This isn't my line of thinking.

I was merely stating a phenomenon that can be objectively observed. Both of you have tacked on a bunch of ideological baggage (kind of like a straw man).

I don't see the controversy in stating that higher wage pressures in some countries have led companies to find cheaper labour elsewhere. Where have you guys been for the last few decades?

Somehow that makes me a misleading socialist?

I haven't even stated my opinion yet.

 

@Baraka_Guru that may because that's how your posts are reading.
Actually they tend to be that tone typically, to be honest.

Just as @Aceventura tends to sound ultra-capitalist and conservative.

I wasn't "just joking" when I referred to Heat Miser & Cold Miser.

Then again, I'm likely a rambling wishy-washy centrist.
And I'm not Mother Nature...