Bad News For People Who Hate Good News (economy added 243,000 jobs in January)

[It's On A Slab]

The Obama "recovery" is something I will never grasp because it doesn't exist. You can't do things that you know will stifle economic growth and then say those same policies are the reason the economy is doing better. It's kinda like having an in-grown toenail on one big toe that hurts, and then you take a hammer and whack the big toe on the other foot and proclaim that your in-grown toe feels better. You haven't done anything to alleviate the pain in the first toe its just muted because the other one hurts worse.

Overall jobs lost is still growing, inflation is still very real, housing prices and market suck. The jobs shell game is just taking the eyes off the underlying disaster that remains very real. Great technique for politicians but devastating for improving our nation's economic health.

Bad news for people who hate good news.

 

[rizolltizide]

Re: Bad News For People Who Like Good News (economy added 243,000 jobs in January)

I saw the same thing here. In the print industry most of our work suddenly dried up because a lot of companies scaled back their advertising budgets while just holding onto a wait & see pattern. From talking to different business owners from around Alabama, Georgia, etc most of the concern and not spending their money was because they were in a wait & see to find out just what the hell Obama was doing with the Healthcare bill, stimulus, etc and how it was going to impact everyone down the line. He basically single-handedly put a ton of businesses into the "we're not going to spend a dime while we wait to see how this shakes out" mode.

I think we could be doing much better than we are if not for his general ineptitude (such as making ignorant statements about ATM's, stock market) that kept people clutching onto their money living in fear. There are the issues with the housing market, the crap Bush did, etc. but for most of the business owners I've talked to it was Obama and his desire to ram through Healthcare while he still had Congress that kept them from spending money.

So while I can't prove that without Obama or just with Obama not trying to ram through his bills while the getting was good things would be better than they are now, I'd say its a pretty safe bet that it would have been.

Blammo. That right there is the dealio.

 

[Bodhisattva]

We're still getting anemic growth - hardly enough to sustain a recovery. We're several years into the recovery, yet we should have entered an economic boom about two years ago. All this spending (waste) and regulation has lead us to trade long term stagnation for a real recovery.

Compare the growth rate under Reagan. In the forth quarter of 1982 it was about 0.5%. Then the pro-business policies kicked in. The quaterly growth from Jan 1983 to mid-1984 averaged better than 8.0% each quarter. Obama chose a different path, and we are all the poorer for it.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Bad news for people who hate good news.

I would call it mediocre news on the jobs front. But, it is better than bad news.

 

[lazlohollyfeld]

Actually I do own a company while being a student. Thanks for being condescending though!

Then I would think you might have a better appreciation for the cause and effect relationship that increasing taxes and regulation have on a business.

In my position I see supply and demand situations played out continually. I see tax and regulation (or the potential for tax and regulation) policy that affects my customers because it then impacts my business. I see my clients holding off on expansion because they cannot accurately determine their future labor costs within a reasonable certainty due to the potential affects of Obamacare. I see new building starts determined by where they are least likely to be bothered by local government paperwork and interference, construction related labor unions, and onerous local taxes and fees.

One of the things I'm responsible for is pricing out our products and services. Obviously we need to make money and preferably a good profit. Yet at the same time we do not want to leave to any money on the table. There is a fine line where I can make the most money while still attracting the largest number of customers. Have you ever been through an exercise like that? It is economic theory in action, not an paper. I say in action because theory is just that, theory on paper. Proper economics has to deal with human emotion because, after all, that is a big part of what drives cause and effect economic activity.

I can keep going on and on but my point is I see economic theory displayed in my business on a daily basis. Don't you?

 

[Bodhisattva]

Then I would think you might have a better appreciation for the cause and effect relationship that increasing taxes and regulation have on a business.

In my position I see supply and demand situations played out continually. I see tax and regulation (or the potential for tax and regulation) policy that affects my customers because it then impacts my business. I see my clients holding off on expansion because they cannot accurately determine their future labor costs within a reasonable certainty due to the potential affects of Obamacare. I see new building starts determined by where they are least likely to be bothered by local government paperwork and interference, construction related labor unions, and onerous local taxes and fees.

One of the things I'm responsible for is pricing out our products and services. Obviously we need to make money and preferably a good profit. Yet at the same time we do not want to leave to any money on the table. There is a fine line where I can make the most money while still attracting the largest number of customers. Have you ever been through an exercise like that? It is economic theory in action, not an paper. I say in action because theory is just that, theory on paper. Proper economics has to deal with human emotion because, after all, that is a big part of what drives cause and effect economic activity.

I can keep going on and on but my point is I see economic theory displayed in my business on a daily basis. Don't you?

Very good points. People don't have to have a grounding in economics in the classroom to have an understanding the basic concepts. People just have to pay attention to what is going on when participating in the marketplace.

We have another poster who talked about his sandwich shop and how the rising cost of food (largely thanks to the ethanol scam) and rising labor costs (minimum wage had just increased) was threatening to put him out of business. He couldn't raise prices much due to competition from bigger competitors. His only recourse was to cut the hours of his employees and increase the hours that he worked (for free). Government policy, in its wisdom, caused his employees to make less money and essentially trapped him at his job.

Most people go through life oblivious to these things and just assume that there is no cost to government action. They should really pay more attention so we all don't suffer.

 

[bamacon]

Then I would think you might have a better appreciation for the cause and effect relationship that increasing taxes and regulation have on a business.

In my position I see supply and demand situations played out continually. I see tax and regulation (or the potential for tax and regulation) policy that affects my customers because it then impacts my business. I see my clients holding off on expansion because they cannot accurately determine their future labor costs within a reasonable certainty due to the potential affects of Obamacare. I see new building starts determined by where they are least likely to be bothered by local government paperwork and interference, construction related labor unions, and onerous local taxes and fees.

One of the things I'm responsible for is pricing out our products and services. Obviously we need to make money and preferably a good profit. Yet at the same time we do not want to leave to any money on the table. There is a fine line where I can make the most money while still attracting the largest number of customers. Have you ever been through an exercise like that? It is economic theory in action, not an paper. I say in action because theory is just that, theory on paper. Proper economics has to deal with human emotion because, after all, that is a big part of what drives cause and effect economic activity.

I can keep going on and on but my point is I see economic theory displayed in my business on a daily basis. Don't you?

The human dynamic is something many on the left do not consider at all. It truly is an academic exercise that does not consider things like if we tax the "rich" at this percentage they will stop spending, hiring, investing etc. They "assume" they will take it on the chin, pay the tax, continue business as usual, and the Treasury cofers go up. Of course it never works that way but the thinking never changes because it is a belief, a faith if you will. Evidence and logic need not apply.

 

[bamacon]

Bad news for people who hate good news.

Reagan and Clinton took a different approach and it worked pretty well.

 

[Mamacalled]

Very good points. People don't have to have a grounding in economics in the classroom to have an understanding the basic concepts. People just have to pay attention to what is going on when participating in the marketplace.

We have another poster who talked about his sandwich shop and how the rising cost of food (largely thanks to the ethanol scam) and rising labor costs (minimum wage had just increased) was threatening to put him out of business. He couldn't raise prices much due to competition from bigger competitors. His only recourse was to cut the hours of his employees and increase the hours that he worked (for free). Government policy, in its wisdom, caused his employees to make less money and essentially trapped him at his job.

Most people go through life oblivious to these things and just assume that there is no cost to government action. They should really pay more attention so we all don't suffer.

That would have been me. Crazy how the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac scandal that could have been prevented if the left didn't turn a request for an investigation into a racial issue played a role in me having to sell my business. Successful business with double digit sales increases every year that I was in business. Never made a payment late and made a profit every year and yet still had to sell because my real estate dropped in value to much to be used as collateral anymore. Even though my restaurant had a proven five year track record, the Fed had put so much on the small bank that I was with they could not use the business itself to keep me financed and I was forced to sell.

 

[Bodhisattva]

That would have been me. Crazy how the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac scandal that could have been prevented if the left didn't turn a request for an investigation into a racial issue played a role in me having to sell my business. Successful business with double digit sales increases every year that I was in business. Never made a payment late and made a profit every year and yet still had to sell because my real estate dropped in value to much to be used as collateral anymore. Even though my restaurant had a proven five year track record, the Fed had put so much on the small bank that I was with they could not use the business itself to keep me financed and I was forced to sell.

I wasn't aware of how that story ended, MC. Damn, I'm sorry to hear that. More unintended consequences from the smart guys in DC.

 

[Mamacalled]

I wasn't aware of how that story ended, MC. Damn, I'm sorry to hear that. More unintended consequences from the smart guys in DC.

Yep, the Feds audited the bank that my business loan was with. Informed the bank that they had too many unsecured loans and needed to start calling them in. When they reviewed mine, they determined that my real estate had dropped too much in value to be held as collateral. Gave me thirty days to find more other collateral.
I had never been unemployed since I was 17 with the exception of 3 months when I first got out of the Navy and that was planned. Went 4 and a half months this time to find a job making half of what I was before.
Applied for a position that was open with a company that has offered me a job during the time my ex-wife was pregnant. Very good job but required 70% travel so I turned it down. Didn't want to be away from my family that much. This time around, they said that I was not qualified. I mentioned to them that they had offered me the same job previously but they said that they now required a masters degree and 10 years experience.

 

[bamanut_aj]

Yep, the Feds audited the bank that my business loan was with. Informed the bank that they had too many unsecured loans and needed to start calling them in. When they reviewed mine, they determined that my real estate had dropped too much in value to be held as collateral. Gave me thirty days to find more other collateral.
I had never been unemployed since I was 17 with the exception of 3 months when I first got out of the Navy and that was planned. Went 4 and a half months this time to find a job making half of what I was before.
Applied for a position that was open with a company that has offered me a job during the time my ex-wife was pregnant. Very good job but required 70% travel so I turned it down. Didn't want to be away from my family that much. This time around, they said that I was not qualified. I mentioned to them that they had offered me the same job previously but they said that they now required a masters degree and 10 years experience.

I feel ya. My job is about 70% travel. Hate being away that much, but gotta do what you gotta do. I'm in Construction, and right now, in Middle TN, it just ain't happening.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Then I would think you might have a better appreciation for the cause and effect relationship that increasing taxes and regulation have on a business.

In my position I see supply and demand situations played out continually. I see tax and regulation (or the potential for tax and regulation) policy that affects my customers because it then impacts my business. I see my clients holding off on expansion because they cannot accurately determine their future labor costs within a reasonable certainty due to the potential affects of Obamacare. I see new building starts determined by where they are least likely to be bothered by local government paperwork and interference, construction related labor unions, and onerous local taxes and fees.

One of the things I'm responsible for is pricing out our products and services. Obviously we need to make money and preferably a good profit. Yet at the same time we do not want to leave to any money on the table. There is a fine line where I can make the most money while still attracting the largest number of customers. Have you ever been through an exercise like that? It is economic theory in action, not an paper. I say in action because theory is just that, theory on paper. Proper economics has to deal with human emotion because, after all, that is a big part of what drives cause and effect economic activity.

I can keep going on and on but my point is I see economic theory displayed in my business on a daily basis. Don't you?

I just don't understand why people aren't just more adaptive to the change caused by the government regulation. If you KNOW it is going to happen, why not build the business around being flexible. I'd imagine being "first to market" or "first to adopt the new regulation" would have serious competitive advantages and well worth the invested money in the long run in some cases.

 

[swoop10]

I just don't understand why people aren't just more adaptive to the change caused by the government regulation. If you KNOW it is going to happen, why not build the business around being flexible. I'd imagine being "first to market" or "first to adopt the new regulation" would have serious competitive advantages and well worth the invested money in the long run in some cases.

That's not the point. Why should you have to adjust? But I'll play just to hopefully show you how the game is played. Taxes or regulations are usually going to cost the company more money. Now there are only a few things you can do to overcome this. Raise you price. You can only do that so much and then you price yourself out of the market. Next thing is to lower costs by letting employees go. You then double your work while letting another worker go or atleast cutting their work time (see MamaCalled post for perfect example).

 

[Bama4Ever831]

That's not the point. Why should you have to adjust? But I'll play just to hopefully show you how the game is played. Taxes or regulations are usually going to cost the company more money. Now there are only a few things you can do to overcome this. Raise you price. You can only do that so much and then you price yourself out of the market. Next thing is to lower costs by letting employees go. You then double your work while letting another worker go or atleast cutting their work time (see MamaCalled post for perfect example).

Oh well....nevermind

 

[Bodhisattva]

I just don't understand why people aren't just more adaptive to the change caused by the government regulation. If you KNOW it is going to happen, why not build the business around being flexible. I'd imagine being "first to market" or "first to adopt the new regulation" would have serious competitive advantages and well worth the invested money in the long run in some cases.

How much will Obamacare cost? It's kind of hard to plan much with such a massive unknown. What is certain is that the cost of hiring employees will reach European levels. And, since we have to be so much like Europe, we will see European levels of structural unemployment.

 

[cbi1972]

That's not the point. Why should you have to adjust? But I'll play just to hopefully show you how the game is played. Taxes or regulations are usually going to cost the company more money. Now there are only a few things you can do to overcome this. Raise you price. You can only do that so much and then you price yourself out of the market. Next thing is to lower costs by letting employees go. You then double your work while letting another worker go or atleast cutting their work time (see MamaCalled post for perfect example).

Or if your business is big enough, you have bought enough influence to get legislation passed that is favorable to you, but it will almost never be to the benefit of the individual or small business.

Just look at the morass of idiocy that is American beer distribution, and that is controlled at the state level.

If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
-- J. Paul Getty

 

[lazlohollyfeld]

Or if your business is big enough, you have bought enough influence to get legislation passed that is favorable to you, but it will almost never be to the benefit of the individual or small business.

Just look at the morass of idiocy that is American beer distribution, and that is controlled at the state level.

If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.
-- J. Paul Getty

This. New regulations and compliance issues are best dealt with by large corporations. They have the lawyers and accountants to digest the regulations, they have the money to hire more employees and have existing employees to divert to handle new requirements. Smaller companies do not have that luxury. We are the ones that have to figure out what is going on and then finding some way to deal with it. Who handles SOX compliance better, the company with 15,000 employees or the one with 200? Who handles GLBA compliance better? HIPPA? PCI? We do not even have an attorney on staff (heaven help me the day we actually have to hire one full time), how am I supposed to absorb and process regulations when my largest competitor has an in house legal department?

Do the regulations even do anything? What does the nameless bureaucrat who devised the rule know about your industry? What do the regulations even do or serve?

My next door neighbor rails on about OSHA inspectors at his facility. Would you like to know why? They come in and measure railings and test for this and that and somehow they always find an issue. It doesn't matter that something may have been there for years or may have been done a certain way for years and any number of other inspectors have never said a word about it, a new inspector comes in and says "oh, that's wrong, change it" and they have to deal with it. And that happens because there are 1,000's of rules that affect his facility and no one knows them all, certainly not the myriad OSHA inspectors. My neighbor and his team do not know them all, nor do the various OSHA people who come through the door. But what really sets him off is that they never, NEVER, ask about the actual safety at his facility. They have never, ever asked about incidents or accidents. Never asked any salient questions about safety procedures and how it relates to what the facility does. All they want to know is are the forms filled out correctly, are the material data safety sheets properly placed on the barrels of chemicals, are there signs where they should and are they hung at the right height, and on and on. The times where there have been an incident, did the OSHA rep want to know more about it and what happened? Nope, just wanted to make sure the form was filled out correctly then re-filed it. Did they actually read it? Nope, just wanted to make sure all the boxes were filled out and dated correctly.

And I am not beating on OHSA, they did some worthwhile things long ago. However, the fact is the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error. And no amount of rules and regulations are going to stop human error. But that is the problem with all the regulations, all it does is create paperwork. All the enforcement is concerned about is the paperwork. When an issue occurs all anyone is concerned about is the paperwork. And before you even mention it, this sometimes is to the benefit of the transgressor. They can look back and say 'we know we had an issue/accident/problem, but it wasn't our fault as we did everything by the book, look at the paper trail".

 

[Bodhisattva]

This. New regulations and compliance issues are best dealt with by large corporations. They have the lawyers and accountants to digest the regulations, they have the money to hire more employees and have existing employees to divert to handle new requirements. Smaller companies do not have that luxury. We are the ones that have to figure out what is going on and then finding some way to deal with it. Who handles SOX compliance better, the company with 15,000 employees or the one with 200? Who handles GLBA compliance better? HIPPA?

Do the regulations even do anything? What does the nameless bureaucrat who devised the rule know about your industry? What do the regulations even do or serve?

My next door neighbor rails on about OSHA inspectors at his facility. Would you like to know why? They come in and measure railings and test for this and that and somehow they always find an issue. It doesn't matter that something may have been there for years or may have been done a certain way for years and any number of other inspectors have never said a word about it, a new inspector comes in and says "oh, that's wrong, change it" and they have to deal with it. And that happens because there are 1,000's of rules that affect his facility and no one knows them all. My neighbor and his team do not know them all, nor do the various OSHA people who come through the door. But what really sets him off is that they never, NEVER, ask about the actual safety at his facility. They have never, ever asked about incidents or accidents. Never asked any salient questions about safety procedures and how it relates to what the facility does. All they want to know is are the forms filled out correctly, are the material data safety sheets properly placed on the barrels of chemicals, are there signs where they should and are they hung at the right height, and on and on. The times where there have been an incident, did the OSHA rep want to know more about it and what happened? Nope, just wanted to make sure the form was filled out correctly then re-filed it. Did they actually read it? Nope, just wanted to make sure all the boxes were filled out and dated correctly.

And I am not beating on OHSA, they did some worthwhile things long ago. However, the fact is the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error. And no amount of rules and regulations are going to stop human error. But that is the problem with all the regulations, all it does is create paperwork. All the enforcement is concerned about is the paperwork. When an issue occurs all anyone is concerned about is the paperwork. And before you even mention it, this sometimes is to the benefit of the transgressor. They can look back and say 'we know we had an issue/accident/problem, but it wasn't our fault as we did everything by the book, look at the paper trail".

I wonder if your personal experience, and that of your neighbor, is making any kind of impression on the big government crowd. Doubt it.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

I wonder if your personal experience, and that of your neighbor, is making any kind of impression on the big government crowd. Doubt it.

I've had similar experiences. Some of these inspections save lives. Some are a waste of time and money. I'd rather take the way it is than have no regulation on safety.