Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Reagan had it right, Carter had it wrong. All you have to do is look at history to see what works and what doesn't work. I slam liberals non stop because even though history PROVES they ar pushiing failed ideas they push them anyway.>> What amazes me is that you conservatives actually BELIEVE that. You've been drinking the Kool Aid way too long! Average Unemployment during a President's years in office: Eisenhower 4.89 Kennedy 6.13 Johnson 4.42 Nixon 4.98 Ford 7.27 Carter 6.54 Reagan 7.53 GHW Bush 6.30 Clinton 5.20 GW Bush 5.43 Average unemployment rate with a Republican President: 6.07 Average unemployment rate with a Democrat President: 5.57 And just for Beau in case he missed it: Carter: 6.54 Reagan: 7.53 Not only was unemployment worse under Reagan than it was under Carter; it was the WORST unemployment rate in the past 50 years. Yup that Reagan... what a guy!! For every Republican president except Reagan, unemployment was higher in their last year in office than in their first year. For every Democrat president except Carter, unemployment was lower in their last year in office than in their first year. So you tell me... what party manages the economy better?? Source: <a href="http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp" target="_blank">http://www.miseryindex.us/URby year.asp</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I wouldn't wish the economy Reagan inherited from Carter on anyone..that's the trouble with just numbers ( but I know the point you are refuting) - The trouble anyone gets by trying to just showone set of numbers...there are many factors that determine the health of the economy and the health of the workforce -- to put stock in any one is folly.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Excellent stuff on the shared services, etc., vbdad. I was aware of some of that, but not all. Sobering stuff!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 It amazes me that there are so many articles / references and it is so main stream, yet continues to fly under the media's radar for the most part...yet let a Hollywood type get drunk and we get 24 x 7 coverage...I just don't get it. I remain close to the management /business stuff by working with the Dean of my grad school, and many phd thesis papers today are on a future,not so far ahead of us, with a huge part- time work force. My thesis 14 years ago was on the movement of jobs from traditional to lower paying services jobs that eventually would yield a workforce that approached retirement without pensions or benefits. Little did I know in the future many of the major corp's, including mine would cancel traditional pension plans and for cash accumulation finds worth approximately 40% of the traditional pensions and gone would be medical coverage after 30 - 35 years of service. Always good to have to go out looking for medical coverage when you are say 60 and want to retire....I hear it's really readily available and reasonable ! My prediction is outside of jobs associated with very strong unions ( say NEA ) & civil service roles, traditional pensions will be gone from all companies within 5 years. All it took was a few 'leaders' to take the heat from the legal community to test if anything would stand in their way-- and so far that answer is no.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Boy howdy. My employer never had traditional pensions to begin with (just 401k's), but my spouse is nearing 30 years with his Fortune 500 company, and is strongly considering taking the pension as a lump sum rather than counting on the pension to be there in the future. It seems incredible that companies could get away with reneging on the promises they made - a big part of the reason a lot of people stuck with those companies for 30 years in the first place - but some of them ARE getting away with it.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Well, since I just got laid off from my job today, I have to say that I don't think Bush is doing a good job at all. While I know it's not directly his fault, it's his lack of policies about outsourcing/offshoring that have contributed to it.
Originally Posted By jonvn You know, when they actually have George Bush come into to the office to lay you off directly, you have to lay at least some of the blame at his feet.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Well, since I just got laid off from my job today, I have to say that I don't think Bush is doing a good job at all. While I know it's not directly his fault, it's his lack of policies about outsourcing/offshoring that have contributed to it.>> Sorry about your job. Go get a better one! Exactly what should Bush do different that would have saved your job again? You really think the president should have supreme rule on how companies operate? How would a democrat have saved your job?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Not only was unemployment worse under Reagan than it was under Carter; it was the WORST unemployment rate in the past 50 years. Yup that Reagan... what a guy!!>> YOu have really gone off the deep end with this one RT. NOBODY in their right mind would ever say Carter did ANTHING better than Reagan besides create terrorism and misery. You talk about my credibility? In our house it's a trivia question for the kids .. " who was the worst president in the last 100 years if not ever? Answer from Beau and Mandy is Jimmy Carter. They can even tell you why. Reagan gave us 20 years of record ecomonic growth with his policies and he toppled the freaken Soviet Union by being a tough conservative. Any liberal that slams Ronnie deserves to get hit by lightning!
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Beau, don't get me started. I'm not in the mood to put up with you "stuff". Just lay off.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<YOu have really gone off the deep end with this one RT. >> I think Reagan was a good president. I voted for the guy. Twice. But for the most part the economy REALLY SUCKED while he was in office. The average unemployment rated during Reagan's terms in office was the highest rate in the last 50 years. And I don't think you can say that he set the stage for a great recovery because EVERY YEAR under GHW Bush the unemployment rate was higher than the year before. These aren't opinions Beau, they are FACTS. You may not like those facts, and they clearly don't align with your prejudices. But they are facts just the same.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beau, don't get me started. I'm not in the mood to put up with you "stuff". Just lay off.>> All right. But look. Everyone has either been laid off or fired. Usually a BETTER job comes around or you meet your wife at the new job or something cool happens.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <but my spouse is nearing 30 years with his Fortune 500 company, and is strongly considering taking the pension as a lump sum rather than counting on the pension to be there in the future.< take it now but first go to a financial planner nad have it set up as an annuity... and remember this important message which comes to me courtesy of my best friend - who has been the VP of Comp & Ben for 2 very major firms in the last 10 years...and also is partof a presidential council on benefits - as he gave it to me when I complained about my penion going away and becoming a comparatovely meager cash plan 7 years ago: " if you paid nothing into your pension plan oveer the years, and the money was contributed by the company only...( even if it was built in as part of your compensation plan, and you weretold your salary was not at the top of the inductry because you had this lucrative pension plan worth $xxx, etc etc ) the company owes you nothing ! Morally and ethically they may owe you what was promised, but the cold hard facts are legally they owe you squat ! Verbal contract ? Not according to most courts so far ... The rules and pension plans can be changed any time. Even those already drawing pensions can have the ground rules changed to some extent. Ask the people who worked for Sears. Many pension funds are severely underfunded...and are becoming more so as the average life expectancy increases. If the company defaults your pension to the Feds..you may see 70% of your pension .... for the most part workers now won't have to worry about that...even the cash accumulation plans are being phased out...for an even cheaper alternative of 401K contributions. And in many cases the corps now are not offering a match - just offering the ability to participate. Those who used to match 1:1 are 1:2 or less and legally capped at 6%.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Well, since I just got laid off from my job today, I have to say that I don't think Bush is doing a good job at all. While I know it's not directly his fault, it's his lack of policies about outsourcing/offshoring that have contributed to it.< Really sorry about your job...I truly am. I have been talking about this issue incessantly for the past 2 years or so, yet some here will keep telling you how hot the economy and job market is and how wasy it is to get a better job. I wish you nothing but the best in your quest, and not knowing your age if you are younger, look at jobs that cannot be easily off shored if you go to a major corporation...really best advice is to go to a medium to smaller company it you can. Think long term as many people are saying out there now, if you work in the 'back office' and do a job that can be done remotely with little direct customer contact - you are at severe risk for off shoring. If you work for a major firm, count on it...I hope you find something real soon.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Exactly what should Bush do different that would have saved your job again? You really think the president should have supreme rule on how companies operate? How would a democrat have saved your job? < sorry sick and tired of this answer -- I keep telling you what's happening and the response is to point the finger at the other party and say what would they do better. The better question is what did either party do to help this-- and the answer is nothing ! If someone doesn't come up with some solution quickly your HOT economy, even in your view , will be in the tank.. Make nomistake, these corporations are not doingthis to survive, or compete globally - they are doing it to maximize profits -- while holding local governments hostage for tax relief zones and special privileges, then sticking it to the constituents who voted for them to get tax breaks. But then we all know tax breaks are good....how else can CEO's make $20M a year and more ? So no the pres. shouldn;t have upreme rule over corps.. but taxing jurisdictions should not give out tax breaks to corps throwing the people who live around them out of work so that someone in another part of the world can make $400/mo ! In this area the local governments gave Sears huge tax breaks on land in a very upscale area. They tore down an outdoor concert arena because it was on property Sears wanted ( butnever used) - and all kinds of incentives not to move jobs from here. That lasted less than a year and most jobs were gone from here, and the land which rose significantly in price being sold at huge profits...there needs to be more stipulations on companies that get these breaks and they need to be enforceable...but hey, no one wants to tick off big business...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < Everyone has either been laid off or fired. Usually a BETTER job comes around or you meet your wife at the new job or something cool happens< Again, in what parallel universe ? Up until a feew years ago I knew very very few people that had either beenlaid off or fired..so maybe you hang with a different crowd...but I knew people who were dedicated ,loyal employees for firms for 25 - 35 years. Highly skilled and yes I know it doesn't matter to you, but highly educated, either with tech skills or that darned book learnin'..great communicators, well liked by their clients etc....but now they committed one of two major crimes -- the grew older than 50, or their skills lied in a job where an MBA in India could perform the same task for $400/mo. Wow, what heinous crimes they committed huh ?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I have a test for you. Create a reume on Careerbuilder.com or Monster.com. Make it oustanding -- as many degrees as you want, as many sales awards as you want, tech skills whatever..but make it clear that you are say 55 years old. Make sure those graduation dates are in the 70's...post that resume and open it up and see how many hits you get back for jobs. Then apply on line to jobs that fit those qualifications -- and see if you get any return responses. I think you would be shocked by the deafening silence. But hey, that person could get a job as a greeter at Wal Mart and then they wouldn;t count against those stellar unemployment stats
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Age does play a role vbdad. It always has though. You sound like this is something new. When I was hiring sales reps I didn't like people over 45 because they were hard to train, they thoght they knew everything and they expected to come in at the top levels of the company. I would have much rather hired a younger person that would at least take direction and not have a bad, jaded attitude Not to say I never hired older people because I did. But they had to have an open attitude and not a chip on their shoulder. You are a smart guy, tons of experience and a nice person. But I would not hire you if you came into my office looking for a sales position. ( I know, you don't do sales ) The reason is that you are to negative and defeatist. You see the glass as half empty. I want a person that sees oportunity not obstacles and pitfalls. You can even argue that you are simply stating the facts, but that still doesn't help the fact that I would see you as a problem with my other sales reps who actually are happy with their situation in life and are confident they are going to do well. Attitude IS everything. vbdad, don't get me wrong. on other subjects you are great. But the subject of jobs and the economy we just see it different.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <The reason is that you are to negative and defeatist. You see the glass as half empty.< your judge of character is horrid. I am negative and defeatist huh >? Explain this: >I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks - so to speak. I grew up dirt poor in a family riddled with alcoholism and other issues > I worked 3 jobs while in high school to put clothes on my back and to help out at home. One job I stuffed papers until 2 - 3 Am then returned to my classes at 7 AM - I graduated 1st in my class of 710 ! > I worked 40 hours a week while attending college as well as playing college sports - try and balance that > I had to leave college because I couldn;t get any more loans - I was maxed out ( in your world of everybody can get anything they want ) > I got a job full time at a major corporation ( a clerk job) because they had tuition reimburesement - and went to school at night for 2.5 more years to complete my undergrad > I also completed 2 master degrees and a phd while working 60 - 70 hours a week since the early 1980's - and worked my way into a fairly high level corporate mgmt position > I traveled extensively in my role as a corporate auditor as well as mgmt - all the while missing my new born kids growing up when they were young- but it was the right thing to do for their future > I never missed a match for my kids in sports after they reached middle school and in HS and made most of my daughters college matches > I am a member of a local schol board > I have done youth motivation in the Chicago public schools for over 20 years > I sit on two educational institutions boards All this while managing family vacations every year / staying married for 28 years and volunteerng my time to coach kids baseball. So take you half filled glass , negative impression of me and .... You are as clueless in this area as the day is long and I am tired of your amateur analysis of people.. Just because i see the economy for what it is,not what the current administration tells me it is, that makes me a negative person. Also I believe I have more to do with the current econmy than you do -- when you are responsible for a $14B budget you let me know - OK . How clueless is that. I have no problem that you have another opinion, but when you decide who I am as a person,you are way off base buddy. If this is a profile of a negative person who sees obstacles,maybe it's because I have had to climb over so many of them...and understands what it takes.
