I read an interesting article on CNBC.com the other day about "the recovery." Of course everyone knows I speak of the flow stemming from the current recession-ebb, one which we as a world as in definite need of. But the point of the article wasn't echoing the current sentiments prevailing on the news and internet, it was speculating that "the recovery" is essentially something mental, rather than something monetary or something physical.
The authors, rather respected and decorated economists and great thinkers (including Nobel Prize in Economics winners) postulated that a recession recovery really begins once the majority of the population mentally decides that the recession needs to begin winding down and a recovery needs to begin. This unspoken emotion begins to manifest as an increasing consumer sentiment reading, then an increase in spending, and eventually the society as a whole begins to consume more (after all, we need to identify ourselves as a consumer national after we made the pivotal and decisive shift to a consumer society from a manufacturing society back in the 1950s) and once production and attitude begins to increase and improve, then jobs begin to come back.
The posed hypothesis is that we control the 'business cycles' through our attitudes and sentiments. It argues the 1920s were a period of radical optimism and merriment, stemming from the end of WWI, but by the end of the 1920s, and coupled by it not ushered in by the sudden crash of the stock market, there was a 'looming, terrible permeating pessimism,' one which was ready to annihilate the past decade of growth. It says that if a mental shift occurs, which is beginning to take place now, then a recovery is imminent.
It does make plenty of sense, though it is not recognized as an official term or identified as an actual phenomena. One can begin to sense a subtle shift occurring, however, so perhaps it is true. Driving through the surrounding towns and cities here in MA, I can see several new businesses opening. I see the local train stations more packed with cars belonging to workers heading into Boston to work. I am also seeing more non-essential businesses thriving: flower shoppes, karate centers, copy centers, small breakfast restaurants, and even a few local manufacturing businesses. Through CT and RI, when I have traveled back to visit my parents, I am also seeing this occur, though at a smaller scale and much slower.
Is this occurring because we as a population have decided we've had enough of it and we cannot be restrained by the term any longer? Have we preempted the official 'end' to the recession by determining through our sentiments and attitudes that it should end? Are our minds capable of such monumental accomplishments?
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
City and Town Stimulus Instead
Have I not been saying this for the past three months? Directly to towns and cities, not the country as a whole with spending spent arbitrarily. Begin at the trickle-down point. The government cut funding to cities and towns, which in turn had their internal funding cut because of decreased tax revenues, etc. Then a stimulus is passed, but little money is given back to the cities and towns that it was stripped from. An economic 'stimulus' should have been to bridge the incurred budget gaps of the cities and towns of America--that way towns that wanted it could accept it, those who didn't, would not be required to. It would have alleviated a lot and would have offered up some resolution to cities and towns still battling with budgets currently, and that will continue to struggle for a few years to come until things 'level out'--notice: not 'return to normal.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090615/ts_nm/us_economy_mayors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090615/ts_nm/us_economy_mayors
Friday, May 8, 2009
Economical Things
The jobless rate is at a scary and intimidating 8.9%, which leaves me wondering just how high it will get. Economists say it's better than what they expected, since "only" 539,000 jobs were cut, which is a huge decrease from the previous few months, and the least since October. But previous months payroll numbers, unemployment figures, and layoff numbers continue to be revised to the negative end, and that is what really pushed the 8.9% rate to where it stands as of right now. So, without the drop of nearly 100,000 maintained jobs last month, the rate would probably be 9% or closer to 9% anyway. It's the highest unemployment rate in 25 years.
25 years? Well, that actually doesn't sound as bad, does it? Not with all the talk of "the greatest since The Great Depression."
It does seem with spring that a turnaround has started to blossom. (More puns to come, I promise.) And now that we're seeing these 'green chutes' (told you...) it seems that the suddenly optimistic and steadfast mood that began to prevail in American citizens as soon as the temperature rose and the snow melted, might signal the recovery is beginning.
We're still in the recession, though, and they still expect the unemployment number to rise higher from where it is right now. With that in mind, you have to wonder how high it will go and if it will become worse than "in the past 25 years." That's the early-to-mid 1980s recession that was pretty serious, but there was also a pretty serious recession, and one with a more protracted recovery, in the mid-1970s. Is that what we're looking at now?
In the 1980s, the unemployment rate rose to more than 10%, I think 10.3% is the highest it registered, which is the highest since WWII, but there was a sharper decline of jobs in the 1970s, and a slower rebound.
If our economy can stabilize later this year, jobs can be added much quicker than economists expect (mirroring the rapid-fire job hirings after the end of the 1990s and early 2000s recessions), and the unemployment rate can stay below 10.3% (and hopefully 10% though that looks further away from reality now...) then perhaps America can come out of this recession without having to label it as "The Great Recession," or to continually refer to it as the worst since The Great Depression. Perhaps we can call it the 'boom, bust, boom recession' in which riches went to rags and suddenly back to riches again in only a four-five year period. Obviously that would be ideal, and probably too optimistic.
But it's suddenly a different tune for me...I remember in late January and early February when the blogosphere was rampant with panic and depression. I remember reading one blog in particular saying job losses and the unemployment rate would continue upwards for all of 2009 and most of 2010, bottoming out somewhere close to the 25% in The Great Depression, and possibly surpassing it. A lot of these incredibly intelligent economists said with the hoarding, horrible downward revisions in orders and activity, the rampant bankruptcies and uncertainties surrounding huge institutions, banks and manufacturers, that we should expect nearly every large company in the US to fail and a trickle effect would take place with most of the small businesses that rely on the large businesses. Eventually we would not be able to borrow money from other countries to finance things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and reinvestments into our economy, and the mood of the nation would dissolve into pure depression.
It seemed we would only be seeing cloudy and rainy days from now on and that the sun would never shine again. Some suggested we understand that this recession will be mankind's catastrophe (around the time Iceland went bankrupt), and that there is no recovery from it for a generation, at least. They expected many to return to simpler lifestyles of farming in remote locations, cities to become outlaw towns of disease and pestilence, and for our governments and leaders to begin massive wars and efforts that would ultimately lead nowhere and eventually plunge the world off one of its own cliffs.
Seems the mood of a nation had changed dramatically in less than five months. If we can change this quickly in five months, can we change completely, and go back to our happy, more secure lifestyles in double this time? I want to see where we are 10 months from now. That's the beginning of March in 2010. By then, I want to see jobs added far outpace jobs lost (the unemployment rate shrink by a percentage every month instead of increase), a return of many Americans to frivolity, and the fear and trepidation of an economy on the brink of widespread depression and dissolution to be only a nightmare.
25 years? Well, that actually doesn't sound as bad, does it? Not with all the talk of "the greatest since The Great Depression."
It does seem with spring that a turnaround has started to blossom. (More puns to come, I promise.) And now that we're seeing these 'green chutes' (told you...) it seems that the suddenly optimistic and steadfast mood that began to prevail in American citizens as soon as the temperature rose and the snow melted, might signal the recovery is beginning.
We're still in the recession, though, and they still expect the unemployment number to rise higher from where it is right now. With that in mind, you have to wonder how high it will go and if it will become worse than "in the past 25 years." That's the early-to-mid 1980s recession that was pretty serious, but there was also a pretty serious recession, and one with a more protracted recovery, in the mid-1970s. Is that what we're looking at now?
In the 1980s, the unemployment rate rose to more than 10%, I think 10.3% is the highest it registered, which is the highest since WWII, but there was a sharper decline of jobs in the 1970s, and a slower rebound.
If our economy can stabilize later this year, jobs can be added much quicker than economists expect (mirroring the rapid-fire job hirings after the end of the 1990s and early 2000s recessions), and the unemployment rate can stay below 10.3% (and hopefully 10% though that looks further away from reality now...) then perhaps America can come out of this recession without having to label it as "The Great Recession," or to continually refer to it as the worst since The Great Depression. Perhaps we can call it the 'boom, bust, boom recession' in which riches went to rags and suddenly back to riches again in only a four-five year period. Obviously that would be ideal, and probably too optimistic.
But it's suddenly a different tune for me...I remember in late January and early February when the blogosphere was rampant with panic and depression. I remember reading one blog in particular saying job losses and the unemployment rate would continue upwards for all of 2009 and most of 2010, bottoming out somewhere close to the 25% in The Great Depression, and possibly surpassing it. A lot of these incredibly intelligent economists said with the hoarding, horrible downward revisions in orders and activity, the rampant bankruptcies and uncertainties surrounding huge institutions, banks and manufacturers, that we should expect nearly every large company in the US to fail and a trickle effect would take place with most of the small businesses that rely on the large businesses. Eventually we would not be able to borrow money from other countries to finance things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and reinvestments into our economy, and the mood of the nation would dissolve into pure depression.
It seemed we would only be seeing cloudy and rainy days from now on and that the sun would never shine again. Some suggested we understand that this recession will be mankind's catastrophe (around the time Iceland went bankrupt), and that there is no recovery from it for a generation, at least. They expected many to return to simpler lifestyles of farming in remote locations, cities to become outlaw towns of disease and pestilence, and for our governments and leaders to begin massive wars and efforts that would ultimately lead nowhere and eventually plunge the world off one of its own cliffs.
Seems the mood of a nation had changed dramatically in less than five months. If we can change this quickly in five months, can we change completely, and go back to our happy, more secure lifestyles in double this time? I want to see where we are 10 months from now. That's the beginning of March in 2010. By then, I want to see jobs added far outpace jobs lost (the unemployment rate shrink by a percentage every month instead of increase), a return of many Americans to frivolity, and the fear and trepidation of an economy on the brink of widespread depression and dissolution to be only a nightmare.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Darwinian Socialism
Or Socialistic Darwinism. Either way you write it, the phrase seems perfect for our current times.
"Too big to fail" is the buzz phrase of the recession and will likely outlive the recession and become a part of our national consciousness. It is no doubt the reason for the majority of the troubles of this recession and should serve as a lesson for the future. We learned a great deal from The Great Depression, and with the precautions we took afterward, may have averted the full-blown second one, but in the meantime, we have created a lengthy, prolonged, deep, and slow-to-rebound recession, coined colloquially as The Great Recession. No doubt we stand to learn a lot from The Great Recession, mainly how 'too big to fail' is 'too big to be any good.'
Bailouts, TARP, stress tests, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on, perhaps infinitely, as we continue onward in the restructuring of the American economy, and therefore the world economy, and begin to unravel the thick web of deceit, greed, and uncontrolled/unchecked capitalism that spurred the catastrophes we witness daily. All of it caused by companies becoming too big to fail. The too big portion is easy to solve: break off portions of each too-big company and spur new investments in off-shoots of the company--less fundamental portions (for instance Countrywide could stand again on its own should BofA want to rid itself of it) that will be profitable on their own. The 'fail' part is a bit trickier.
The blog title and phrase is extremely funny, and did appear in the New Yorker, but besides the glib and humor, there is a resounding ring of truth to it.
In Darwinism, the fittest survive, and the weakest (no matter how large) will perish. That is more or less how capitalism would like to believe it is run, but the evidence is always pointed to the contrary as merger & acquisition, layoffs, and huge severances prevent the sort of 'eradication' or 'extinction' you would expect to see if capitalism were working wholly and faithfully. Instead it seems the common man, the less influential portion of the 'too big' always seems to be the one that fails. That would be the equivalent of the ticks dying instead of the T-Rex. (Stick with me here, I know the analogy is convoluted, but I promise I'm not referring to entry-level workers and blue-collar workers as 'ticks' for no reason.)
When a company the size of CitiGroup implodes and needs billions of dollars to stay afloat, never mind return a potential profit again in the end, there should be a few things in 'true' capitalism that would occur. The causes of the meltdown would become extinct. That means any upper management, executives, board members, presidents, etc. would be ousted and fired--without severances and without bonuses. Everyone on the lower end of the totem pole would be promoted and would restart the company, minus the dead weight or those with negative influence who drove the company into oblivion. Sounds more fair, but that will never happen.
So, we get socialism, in which the company (and the government) attempts to do what is best for everyone, not just the lowly workers and not just the highly paid executives. It attempts to plug the leak quickly and keep the sinking ship afloat (even if it means draining the water from the ocean instead of letting the ship go down--see, I told you the metaphor would work!!). The majority is saved, which is socialism, as opposed to Darwinism. But only certain companies are saved: Bye Bye Bear Stearns. Who will buy Merrill Lynch?! Anyone?! The aforementioned others saw worse fates. And what is doubly troubling is that the majority of executives who did lose their jobs were either hired by different companies or have so much money that working for them is an option for the time being.
Now the lowly workers, AKA me and anyone else making less than $100,000 year (including their bonuses), who should have been promoted and should never have been fired under any circumstances, are let go and the company continues with the same damaged portions that caused its downfall to begin in the first place.
Seems backwards, doesn't it? Well that's Darwinian socialism. Survival of what's best for everyone, but only what is more or less arbitrarily chosen to be the fittest of what's best for everyone. Yes, seems odd. Now social Darwinism is a bit different: that means there are certain species that should become extinct, but we artificially repopulate these species until their numbers are great enough to survive on their own again.
Too Big To Fail. Socialism and Darwinism mixed.
Oh, what a wonderful world...
"Too big to fail" is the buzz phrase of the recession and will likely outlive the recession and become a part of our national consciousness. It is no doubt the reason for the majority of the troubles of this recession and should serve as a lesson for the future. We learned a great deal from The Great Depression, and with the precautions we took afterward, may have averted the full-blown second one, but in the meantime, we have created a lengthy, prolonged, deep, and slow-to-rebound recession, coined colloquially as The Great Recession. No doubt we stand to learn a lot from The Great Recession, mainly how 'too big to fail' is 'too big to be any good.'
Bailouts, TARP, stress tests, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on, perhaps infinitely, as we continue onward in the restructuring of the American economy, and therefore the world economy, and begin to unravel the thick web of deceit, greed, and uncontrolled/unchecked capitalism that spurred the catastrophes we witness daily. All of it caused by companies becoming too big to fail. The too big portion is easy to solve: break off portions of each too-big company and spur new investments in off-shoots of the company--less fundamental portions (for instance Countrywide could stand again on its own should BofA want to rid itself of it) that will be profitable on their own. The 'fail' part is a bit trickier.
The blog title and phrase is extremely funny, and did appear in the New Yorker, but besides the glib and humor, there is a resounding ring of truth to it.
In Darwinism, the fittest survive, and the weakest (no matter how large) will perish. That is more or less how capitalism would like to believe it is run, but the evidence is always pointed to the contrary as merger & acquisition, layoffs, and huge severances prevent the sort of 'eradication' or 'extinction' you would expect to see if capitalism were working wholly and faithfully. Instead it seems the common man, the less influential portion of the 'too big' always seems to be the one that fails. That would be the equivalent of the ticks dying instead of the T-Rex. (Stick with me here, I know the analogy is convoluted, but I promise I'm not referring to entry-level workers and blue-collar workers as 'ticks' for no reason.)
When a company the size of CitiGroup implodes and needs billions of dollars to stay afloat, never mind return a potential profit again in the end, there should be a few things in 'true' capitalism that would occur. The causes of the meltdown would become extinct. That means any upper management, executives, board members, presidents, etc. would be ousted and fired--without severances and without bonuses. Everyone on the lower end of the totem pole would be promoted and would restart the company, minus the dead weight or those with negative influence who drove the company into oblivion. Sounds more fair, but that will never happen.
So, we get socialism, in which the company (and the government) attempts to do what is best for everyone, not just the lowly workers and not just the highly paid executives. It attempts to plug the leak quickly and keep the sinking ship afloat (even if it means draining the water from the ocean instead of letting the ship go down--see, I told you the metaphor would work!!). The majority is saved, which is socialism, as opposed to Darwinism. But only certain companies are saved: Bye Bye Bear Stearns. Who will buy Merrill Lynch?! Anyone?! The aforementioned others saw worse fates. And what is doubly troubling is that the majority of executives who did lose their jobs were either hired by different companies or have so much money that working for them is an option for the time being.
Now the lowly workers, AKA me and anyone else making less than $100,000 year (including their bonuses), who should have been promoted and should never have been fired under any circumstances, are let go and the company continues with the same damaged portions that caused its downfall to begin in the first place.
Seems backwards, doesn't it? Well that's Darwinian socialism. Survival of what's best for everyone, but only what is more or less arbitrarily chosen to be the fittest of what's best for everyone. Yes, seems odd. Now social Darwinism is a bit different: that means there are certain species that should become extinct, but we artificially repopulate these species until their numbers are great enough to survive on their own again.
Too Big To Fail. Socialism and Darwinism mixed.
Oh, what a wonderful world...
Monday, May 4, 2009
Economical Things
Warren Buffet was interviewed (again) on CNBC this morning and asked when he sees the recession ending, what his best/worst investments over the past year were, and when he thinks the bottoms of all the different markets will occur and when we'll see a recovery start to unfold.
That's a pretty tall order, especially when they posed the same questions to him less than a month ago. It seems CNBC's reliance on Buffet (and many times Donald Trump) as the canary in the coal mine failed in late 2007 as the recession hit, but they refuse to acknowledge it. (I don't fault Buffet as few to no one could have predicted the full scale of this downturn and few realized the compounded and convoluted schemes and risks taken over the past decade would unravel simultaneously.) Yet, they still harp on him as the crystal ball-holder who, at times, has been correct in predicting unprecedented changes in fiscal opportunities, crashes, and upswings.
True, he has been the guiding light at the end of the tunnel, but a lot of his investments have a lot of luck involved. He isn't a god of the markets by any means (heck, we could give him his own show akin to Jim Cramer's if he were...wait...), yet he is one of the most successful and popular investors of the past few decades. Instead of relying on his skepticism, and now optimism, why not focus upon his stance as a conscientious LIBERAL when it comes to investments, business taxes, and government vs. the market. While CNBC maintains a hearty conservative stance they still glorify a staunch LIBERAL who supported Obama, supports higher taxes on those making $250,000 (did somebody say buzz-phrase?), which includes him and his company, and supports regulations and the closing of corporate and fiscal loopholes in order to reign in a ballooning national deficit and debt, and curtail free-for-all business expenditures (bonuses, private jets, elaborate office redecoration, etc.).
But they won't focus on that. Only that 'Obama will stifle new business, lending and jobs with his proposed programs!' to quote on CNBC pundit. Buffet disagrees. Raising taxes now, even on the wealthiest is a horrible idea destined to fail and drive us further into this depression, to paraphrase the arguments of several others a few weeks ago. Buffet disagrees. There is a ton of money on the sidelines of this market and people are beginning to jump in in order to profit from this downturn, after nearly a year of seeing all their investments flounder and fail. Buffet agrees with the sidelines opinion, but suggests many who have the kind of money to wait patiently on the sidelines, and those only menially affected by job losses, have little to no cares about when job losses bottom out (which is the true indicator of when money from the sidelines will return) and are only a leading indicator, not the signal and the cure for the end of the recession/depression.
He also sees the Obama administration's $3.6 trillion budget as 'fair,' while the CNBC pundits refer to it as outrageous and 'a path to hell' to echo the opinions of some other foreign leaders. While I agree that it's mighty in size, it does account for the roughly $1 trillion that stood unaccounted for in the past 18 months, which makes up the remaining size of the deficit. What does that mean? Essentially Obama has only increased our 2010 budget by the cost of 6 months in Iraq and Afghanistan, when compared to the cost of the 2009 budget that excluded the wars and other yearly costs, which the former administration referred to as 'incidental.' Seems pretty small in comparison now, doesn't it?
(Should we refer to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'incidental wars' now? I'm sure veterans would be happy about that. The Happenstance Conflict in Iraq. The Oops Battles of 2001-20??. But that's another idea...)
Buffet also agrees taxes need to be raised to offset inflation and the national deficit, but the scale of roughly $300-$700 a year for the average American family is a small price to pay to ensure jobs and an eventual unemployment rate (when the increased taxes would be enabled) of less than 4%. 4%?! That's incredible. And that's a rate for a world of less spending/more saving, more thrifty shoppers, and more conservative buyers on all fronts.
I doubt we'll see a return to the frivolity of 2005-2006, and I doubt we'll see a turnaround this year. But I do see a bottom this year. So perhaps I'm optimistic, but just not as optimistic as Buffet. Then again, maybe a turnaround to me means something different than to Warren Buffet. Perhaps it's different to me than CNBC. And by that degree, maybe CNBC's idea of a turnaround or 'profit' is different from the majority of Americans. It's time they realized not all business and 'American business' (as they like to run commercials proclaiming and exulting) is multi-million dollar. If I make $10,000 year as a freelance writer, I'm hoping for tax increases and an improved job market. Not a chance to invest $5 million into a booming tech stock.
CNBC, broaden to survive. Expand your idea to fit the current conditions or risk alienating yourselves. The strict conservative ideals of 'yesteryear' aren't robust enough to thrive in this times and in the coming economies. Survive, yes. Prosper, yes. But at what cost to the entrepreneurial spirit?
That's a pretty tall order, especially when they posed the same questions to him less than a month ago. It seems CNBC's reliance on Buffet (and many times Donald Trump) as the canary in the coal mine failed in late 2007 as the recession hit, but they refuse to acknowledge it. (I don't fault Buffet as few to no one could have predicted the full scale of this downturn and few realized the compounded and convoluted schemes and risks taken over the past decade would unravel simultaneously.) Yet, they still harp on him as the crystal ball-holder who, at times, has been correct in predicting unprecedented changes in fiscal opportunities, crashes, and upswings.
True, he has been the guiding light at the end of the tunnel, but a lot of his investments have a lot of luck involved. He isn't a god of the markets by any means (heck, we could give him his own show akin to Jim Cramer's if he were...wait...), yet he is one of the most successful and popular investors of the past few decades. Instead of relying on his skepticism, and now optimism, why not focus upon his stance as a conscientious LIBERAL when it comes to investments, business taxes, and government vs. the market. While CNBC maintains a hearty conservative stance they still glorify a staunch LIBERAL who supported Obama, supports higher taxes on those making $250,000 (did somebody say buzz-phrase?), which includes him and his company, and supports regulations and the closing of corporate and fiscal loopholes in order to reign in a ballooning national deficit and debt, and curtail free-for-all business expenditures (bonuses, private jets, elaborate office redecoration, etc.).
But they won't focus on that. Only that 'Obama will stifle new business, lending and jobs with his proposed programs!' to quote on CNBC pundit. Buffet disagrees. Raising taxes now, even on the wealthiest is a horrible idea destined to fail and drive us further into this depression, to paraphrase the arguments of several others a few weeks ago. Buffet disagrees. There is a ton of money on the sidelines of this market and people are beginning to jump in in order to profit from this downturn, after nearly a year of seeing all their investments flounder and fail. Buffet agrees with the sidelines opinion, but suggests many who have the kind of money to wait patiently on the sidelines, and those only menially affected by job losses, have little to no cares about when job losses bottom out (which is the true indicator of when money from the sidelines will return) and are only a leading indicator, not the signal and the cure for the end of the recession/depression.
He also sees the Obama administration's $3.6 trillion budget as 'fair,' while the CNBC pundits refer to it as outrageous and 'a path to hell' to echo the opinions of some other foreign leaders. While I agree that it's mighty in size, it does account for the roughly $1 trillion that stood unaccounted for in the past 18 months, which makes up the remaining size of the deficit. What does that mean? Essentially Obama has only increased our 2010 budget by the cost of 6 months in Iraq and Afghanistan, when compared to the cost of the 2009 budget that excluded the wars and other yearly costs, which the former administration referred to as 'incidental.' Seems pretty small in comparison now, doesn't it?
(Should we refer to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'incidental wars' now? I'm sure veterans would be happy about that. The Happenstance Conflict in Iraq. The Oops Battles of 2001-20??. But that's another idea...)
Buffet also agrees taxes need to be raised to offset inflation and the national deficit, but the scale of roughly $300-$700 a year for the average American family is a small price to pay to ensure jobs and an eventual unemployment rate (when the increased taxes would be enabled) of less than 4%. 4%?! That's incredible. And that's a rate for a world of less spending/more saving, more thrifty shoppers, and more conservative buyers on all fronts.
I doubt we'll see a return to the frivolity of 2005-2006, and I doubt we'll see a turnaround this year. But I do see a bottom this year. So perhaps I'm optimistic, but just not as optimistic as Buffet. Then again, maybe a turnaround to me means something different than to Warren Buffet. Perhaps it's different to me than CNBC. And by that degree, maybe CNBC's idea of a turnaround or 'profit' is different from the majority of Americans. It's time they realized not all business and 'American business' (as they like to run commercials proclaiming and exulting) is multi-million dollar. If I make $10,000 year as a freelance writer, I'm hoping for tax increases and an improved job market. Not a chance to invest $5 million into a booming tech stock.
CNBC, broaden to survive. Expand your idea to fit the current conditions or risk alienating yourselves. The strict conservative ideals of 'yesteryear' aren't robust enough to thrive in this times and in the coming economies. Survive, yes. Prosper, yes. But at what cost to the entrepreneurial spirit?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Critics of Obama's Plans Jumped All Over This
http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/106934/Wealth-Less-Effect-Earning-Well-Feeling-Otherwise
This just drips with irony. The ubiquitous conservative critics of Obama's plans have jumped all over this story posted today on Yahoo. Sure, it shows that not every family making $250,000/year is 'rich' by wealth standards, but it sure does show what the centralized family could cut back on or cut out if they were living like the majority of middle-class workers, who make less than $250,000.
The family earns $260,000/year (but with donations and tax deductions they actually earn about $230,000 so this story really doesn't even qualify them. Sorry, pundits.) Classification point # 1. They pay a mortgage on 'extra land they bought.' If they were not 'upper-class,' they wouldn't have a second location of land they own somewhere other than in their home. Classification point # 2. They hope to remodel their house soon, but are unsure because of the economy. The majority of people right now cannot fathom it as they have had salaries significantly cut or are out of a job. Classification point # 3. They have $1,200 left over each month after putting their kids entirely through college, and all their payments. That's an unrealistic dream for the majority of families. Classification point # 4. Oh, and, finally, their vacation at the beach resort. Sure, it might be a family house and it might be split with other members of the family. But the majority of middle-class families can only dream of vacationing at one of them, nevermind owning one. Classification point #5.
Alright, so there's my opinion, although it is slightly more biased than I would like it to be. They are under the $250,000 bracket after all, and the majority of those affected won't even see a tax change unless they earn, including all deductions, gratuities and donations, more than $315,000 (according to CNN Money.)
extra land they bought, $1,200 left over each month, and the hopes for a remodel.
This just drips with irony. The ubiquitous conservative critics of Obama's plans have jumped all over this story posted today on Yahoo. Sure, it shows that not every family making $250,000/year is 'rich' by wealth standards, but it sure does show what the centralized family could cut back on or cut out if they were living like the majority of middle-class workers, who make less than $250,000.
The family earns $260,000/year (but with donations and tax deductions they actually earn about $230,000 so this story really doesn't even qualify them. Sorry, pundits.) Classification point # 1. They pay a mortgage on 'extra land they bought.' If they were not 'upper-class,' they wouldn't have a second location of land they own somewhere other than in their home. Classification point # 2. They hope to remodel their house soon, but are unsure because of the economy. The majority of people right now cannot fathom it as they have had salaries significantly cut or are out of a job. Classification point # 3. They have $1,200 left over each month after putting their kids entirely through college, and all their payments. That's an unrealistic dream for the majority of families. Classification point # 4. Oh, and, finally, their vacation at the beach resort. Sure, it might be a family house and it might be split with other members of the family. But the majority of middle-class families can only dream of vacationing at one of them, nevermind owning one. Classification point #5.
Alright, so there's my opinion, although it is slightly more biased than I would like it to be. They are under the $250,000 bracket after all, and the majority of those affected won't even see a tax change unless they earn, including all deductions, gratuities and donations, more than $315,000 (according to CNN Money.)
extra land they bought, $1,200 left over each month, and the hopes for a remodel.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Taking the Economy's Pulse
JP Morgan Chase reports better than expected earnings, to pair with Intel reporting the same and many other companies reporting earnings that happened to be above the dismal expectations and guidance they had provided months ago. All great signs, and combined with a rising stock market, job losses beginning to ease (a TINY bit), final arrangements being made for car companies, banks and insurers protected, beginning to lend and beginning to pay back their loans to the government, it seems we may be turning a corner.
But...
Mortgage defaults and foreclosures rose by 27% over the past few months (despite the moratorium on foreclosures, explain that one!), Nokia saw profits plunge 90%, UBS warns it may have to add to the 8,700 layoffs announced earlier this week and won't know 'for months' if it 'will be able to stay in business if the economy does not immediately and aggressively turn around,' and now the world's second-largest mall owner has filed for bankruptcy protection. Now it's not to close everything, just to restructure debt as it gets settled back into a different market, and it will probably try to sell off a lot of its assets, including: FANUEIL HALL!
That's right, Fanueil, which has seen good profits even in this downturn is currently $1 million in debt because of defaulted mortgage loans and with either need to be 1) bought by another company or 2) closed down. So, if there isn't a company willing to pay the extravagant price for it and willing to close its debt window, then it's bye bye Fanueil Hall.
But...
Mortgage defaults and foreclosures rose by 27% over the past few months (despite the moratorium on foreclosures, explain that one!), Nokia saw profits plunge 90%, UBS warns it may have to add to the 8,700 layoffs announced earlier this week and won't know 'for months' if it 'will be able to stay in business if the economy does not immediately and aggressively turn around,' and now the world's second-largest mall owner has filed for bankruptcy protection. Now it's not to close everything, just to restructure debt as it gets settled back into a different market, and it will probably try to sell off a lot of its assets, including: FANUEIL HALL!
That's right, Fanueil, which has seen good profits even in this downturn is currently $1 million in debt because of defaulted mortgage loans and with either need to be 1) bought by another company or 2) closed down. So, if there isn't a company willing to pay the extravagant price for it and willing to close its debt window, then it's bye bye Fanueil Hall.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
AND I THOUGHT ARIZONA WAS BAD!!!!!
Doomed, I think, would be the best word for the situation.
If all goes 'according to plan,' the school board in Los Angeles has just effectively said yes to eliminating nearly 5,000 educators from the LA public school system. Granted that is less than 10% of their workforce, and many cuts will come from retirements and offered early retirements or buyouts (not all layoffs), and a lot will be reshuffling of teachers to other districts, consolidating less than 1.0 FTE's, and eliminating redundant positions or cutting unnecessary positions. But no matter how you cut it, it's devastating.
This is leaps and bounds above the 300 predicted layoffs for Arizona that I previously blogged about, and is essentially 'dooming' the education system around LA. I'm not the one to coin the term, however; a former school board member who spoke up at the meeting shouting it to tremendous applause and nearly incited a riot. An estimated 500-1000 students would drop out (on average, of course) at each grade level (Pre-K through 12) as a direct result of the parameters instituted because of the educator layoffs. I say of course because you're not going to have pre-schoolers dropping out in droves, but you'll see that average number of students across the grade levels, meaning probably 100 kindergarten students might drop out, but more than 10,000 high school seniors would, according to the average.
How come? They have a $600 million budget gap. Just the LA school district, not the city and not municipalities, and not suburbs and hamlets. Let me repeat this: 5,000 layoffs.
The only silver linings: The board did vote to extend, by millions of dollars, the size of the deficit they're willing to work with and sit on over the next two years, and will therefore save more than 1,000 of those positions, which belong to experienced teachers with tenure. The other silver lining, this does not include any allotted stimulus money, which is still being worked through the system. There are also countless earmarks the government is trying to negate in order to provide more funding for the school district, so the actual amount the district could receive is still up in the air.
It is an extremely trying time for the country and if we have any hope of a brighter future, we need to support education to the fullest extent possible. We need to effectively double the Department of Education's budget. Do to it what the GI Bill did coming out The Great Depression and into WWII. It made college affordable, attractive and nearly the norm today. Do this after the next two years of stimulus money runs out, but gear it towards later education, including the creation of more charter schools, community colleges and funding for secondary schools to boost graduation rates, college attendees, and those pursuing in-need fields like nursing, math and science, medicine, IT, and specialized engineering. This will make education attractive again and not something that is publicized for its struggles or shortcomings.
We're still leaving plenty of children behind and the answer is funding. We've effectively done nothing to reverse the trends, and that is becoming more worrisome each passing day. Only with more and better education can we change our position. Fewer manufacturing and construction jobs are a problem for blue-collar communities, but if these communities were shaped into educationally apt communities, there would be plentiful opportunities in 'green jobs,' nursing and engineering.
Why is this idea only be twiddled (not to be confused with twittered) about? Is it because we are still too conservative about paying more necessary taxes? Are we too afraid of a technological future? I think both these futures are already here and the longer we wait to confirm it, we'll be in an American rocking chair: we'll be doing something, moving and rocking essentially, but ultimately going nowhere.
If all goes 'according to plan,' the school board in Los Angeles has just effectively said yes to eliminating nearly 5,000 educators from the LA public school system. Granted that is less than 10% of their workforce, and many cuts will come from retirements and offered early retirements or buyouts (not all layoffs), and a lot will be reshuffling of teachers to other districts, consolidating less than 1.0 FTE's, and eliminating redundant positions or cutting unnecessary positions. But no matter how you cut it, it's devastating.
This is leaps and bounds above the 300 predicted layoffs for Arizona that I previously blogged about, and is essentially 'dooming' the education system around LA. I'm not the one to coin the term, however; a former school board member who spoke up at the meeting shouting it to tremendous applause and nearly incited a riot. An estimated 500-1000 students would drop out (on average, of course) at each grade level (Pre-K through 12) as a direct result of the parameters instituted because of the educator layoffs. I say of course because you're not going to have pre-schoolers dropping out in droves, but you'll see that average number of students across the grade levels, meaning probably 100 kindergarten students might drop out, but more than 10,000 high school seniors would, according to the average.
How come? They have a $600 million budget gap. Just the LA school district, not the city and not municipalities, and not suburbs and hamlets. Let me repeat this: 5,000 layoffs.
The only silver linings: The board did vote to extend, by millions of dollars, the size of the deficit they're willing to work with and sit on over the next two years, and will therefore save more than 1,000 of those positions, which belong to experienced teachers with tenure. The other silver lining, this does not include any allotted stimulus money, which is still being worked through the system. There are also countless earmarks the government is trying to negate in order to provide more funding for the school district, so the actual amount the district could receive is still up in the air.
It is an extremely trying time for the country and if we have any hope of a brighter future, we need to support education to the fullest extent possible. We need to effectively double the Department of Education's budget. Do to it what the GI Bill did coming out The Great Depression and into WWII. It made college affordable, attractive and nearly the norm today. Do this after the next two years of stimulus money runs out, but gear it towards later education, including the creation of more charter schools, community colleges and funding for secondary schools to boost graduation rates, college attendees, and those pursuing in-need fields like nursing, math and science, medicine, IT, and specialized engineering. This will make education attractive again and not something that is publicized for its struggles or shortcomings.
We're still leaving plenty of children behind and the answer is funding. We've effectively done nothing to reverse the trends, and that is becoming more worrisome each passing day. Only with more and better education can we change our position. Fewer manufacturing and construction jobs are a problem for blue-collar communities, but if these communities were shaped into educationally apt communities, there would be plentiful opportunities in 'green jobs,' nursing and engineering.
Why is this idea only be twiddled (not to be confused with twittered) about? Is it because we are still too conservative about paying more necessary taxes? Are we too afraid of a technological future? I think both these futures are already here and the longer we wait to confirm it, we'll be in an American rocking chair: we'll be doing something, moving and rocking essentially, but ultimately going nowhere.
State of the Shortages
A new report by a group of prominent education experts, including government analysts and state and district superintendents, indicates that after the recession ends, there will be a severe shortage of teachers. Reports indicate that many veteran teachers will "probably trench in and hold tight for the next two or three years until things seem to stabilize. The only way we don't see this occurring is if districts make deep and sweeping cuts to pension benefits, pay, and cost of living increases over the retirement life of the taxpayer-subsidized pension. If this happens, expect the mass exodus to occur even sooner." What are they distinctly warning about?
Severe shortages in math, science, world language and some special education teachers. To the tune of 4 retirees for every 1 qualified applicant beginning during the 2012-2013 school year. That means fewer qualified teachers in their assignments, undereducated students, larger class sizes, and more initiatives to try to attract more people to the teaching profession, but only for shortage areas. On the other hand, retirements for: elementary school teachers, health and physical education teachers, guidance counselors, and vice principals (in many states no certification or only additional coursework is required) are expected to be even with the amount of applicants, or, in many states, will actually not be affected as a surplus of candidates will be seen beginning in the 2009-2010 school year and extending onward.
The number of early childhood education teachers is taking a large upswing, which they predict as very beneficial given the new government education legislation and ECE earmarks. It is predicted more teachers will fill out those gaps in the coming three years to nearly break even by the 2012-2013 school year. Other subject areas expected to keep pace despite the upcoming blistering baby boomer retirements: English 6-12, History/Social Studies 6-12, Reading, Principals and Superintendents, and specialty subject teachers, such as Tech Ed. (which will see a huge reduction in districts offering the courses), Family and Consumer Sciences (Home Ec.), and Art (which is seeing a growing number of applicants out in the West and South, while shortages will remain in the Northeast and Midwest).
They expect the average years of service for teachers in a district to drop from 16 in 2007-2008 to 9 in 2012-2013, which, when put in perspective, is a huge impact on students if teachers are not properly trained, intelligent, mentored thoroughly, and given plenty of opportunity for growth, assistance and longevity incentives. Higher salaries and more thorough benefits should be re-instituted after the recession is over, along with more professional development opportunities; mentoring programs and group sessions; and incentives for pursuing higher degrees and coursework, for staying within a district, and for participating in after-school activities such as clubs, sports teams, office hour/help sessions, and curriculum planning and management.
Also, being able to develop creative and specialized new courses that requires teachers to be a bit more esoteric can only be beneficial in the end. If a new History teacher is urged to pursue coursework in Chinese History when pursuing their Master's in History, and after three years, is supported in developing a new course in Chinese History at the school district, interest will swell for the course. In fact, students look forward to taking electives, especially those that will look great on college applications and ones that will perk their interests.
There once existed a time when students were offered a bounty of electives, but not anymore. Since 1999, nearly 60% of elective offerings have been scrapped from schools because of tight budgets, education mandates, and pressure to achieve high scores on standardized tests. The answer? To appease to both sides, expand the knowledge content of standardized tests to require knowledge outside of 'the canon.' More to come...
..of course!
Severe shortages in math, science, world language and some special education teachers. To the tune of 4 retirees for every 1 qualified applicant beginning during the 2012-2013 school year. That means fewer qualified teachers in their assignments, undereducated students, larger class sizes, and more initiatives to try to attract more people to the teaching profession, but only for shortage areas. On the other hand, retirements for: elementary school teachers, health and physical education teachers, guidance counselors, and vice principals (in many states no certification or only additional coursework is required) are expected to be even with the amount of applicants, or, in many states, will actually not be affected as a surplus of candidates will be seen beginning in the 2009-2010 school year and extending onward.
The number of early childhood education teachers is taking a large upswing, which they predict as very beneficial given the new government education legislation and ECE earmarks. It is predicted more teachers will fill out those gaps in the coming three years to nearly break even by the 2012-2013 school year. Other subject areas expected to keep pace despite the upcoming blistering baby boomer retirements: English 6-12, History/Social Studies 6-12, Reading, Principals and Superintendents, and specialty subject teachers, such as Tech Ed. (which will see a huge reduction in districts offering the courses), Family and Consumer Sciences (Home Ec.), and Art (which is seeing a growing number of applicants out in the West and South, while shortages will remain in the Northeast and Midwest).
They expect the average years of service for teachers in a district to drop from 16 in 2007-2008 to 9 in 2012-2013, which, when put in perspective, is a huge impact on students if teachers are not properly trained, intelligent, mentored thoroughly, and given plenty of opportunity for growth, assistance and longevity incentives. Higher salaries and more thorough benefits should be re-instituted after the recession is over, along with more professional development opportunities; mentoring programs and group sessions; and incentives for pursuing higher degrees and coursework, for staying within a district, and for participating in after-school activities such as clubs, sports teams, office hour/help sessions, and curriculum planning and management.
Also, being able to develop creative and specialized new courses that requires teachers to be a bit more esoteric can only be beneficial in the end. If a new History teacher is urged to pursue coursework in Chinese History when pursuing their Master's in History, and after three years, is supported in developing a new course in Chinese History at the school district, interest will swell for the course. In fact, students look forward to taking electives, especially those that will look great on college applications and ones that will perk their interests.
There once existed a time when students were offered a bounty of electives, but not anymore. Since 1999, nearly 60% of elective offerings have been scrapped from schools because of tight budgets, education mandates, and pressure to achieve high scores on standardized tests. The answer? To appease to both sides, expand the knowledge content of standardized tests to require knowledge outside of 'the canon.' More to come...
..of course!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Perfect Storm Recession
I like Obama's title of the current recession: The Perfect Storm Recession.
Let's write it into textbooks immediately. Seems fitting as so many elements contributed to this massive shift and downfall. It also seems fitting as this recession looks and feels so different from anything my generation, and the generation before mine, has experienced. It's a bank recession, a housing recession, a technology recession, a job-loss recession, a global recession, and a normal cyclical recession (as many economists predicted one coming towards the end of 2007/beginning of 2008 [boy, were they good!]). Usually only one or two of these elements come into play when a recession hits for 5-12 months. This one has been going strong for 17 months and it will take at least another 3 (by its confusing, convoluted definition) to come out of it, with a probability of about 6 months. That makes it the longest since WWII (as I'm sure you've heard constantly), and if it lasts for 9 more months, it will be longer than the WWII recession; and without argument it is certainly the deepest since The Great Depression.
He said in his speech today that what he would say would be prose, not poetry, which is clever and profound at once. Some have called him the most poetic President in a long time, while others contend he is only 'words' and little 'correct action,' I suppose much like they would interpret poetry to be. But poetry is greater and requires eloquence, imagination, intelligence and risk--a lot of which appears in prose, but with a distinct difference. In prose, you can bumble some of your words, elaborate where desired, and go into detail and explanation, where in poetry you must be succinct, connotative and metaphorical. The majority of his ideal and speeches have been poetic, and this was truly more prosy. I'm sure it answered a lot of his critics' demand that he elaborate and explain though, but of course, not bumble. And if you comprehend my metaphor, you know how I feel about it all.
Let's write it into textbooks immediately. Seems fitting as so many elements contributed to this massive shift and downfall. It also seems fitting as this recession looks and feels so different from anything my generation, and the generation before mine, has experienced. It's a bank recession, a housing recession, a technology recession, a job-loss recession, a global recession, and a normal cyclical recession (as many economists predicted one coming towards the end of 2007/beginning of 2008 [boy, were they good!]). Usually only one or two of these elements come into play when a recession hits for 5-12 months. This one has been going strong for 17 months and it will take at least another 3 (by its confusing, convoluted definition) to come out of it, with a probability of about 6 months. That makes it the longest since WWII (as I'm sure you've heard constantly), and if it lasts for 9 more months, it will be longer than the WWII recession; and without argument it is certainly the deepest since The Great Depression.
He said in his speech today that what he would say would be prose, not poetry, which is clever and profound at once. Some have called him the most poetic President in a long time, while others contend he is only 'words' and little 'correct action,' I suppose much like they would interpret poetry to be. But poetry is greater and requires eloquence, imagination, intelligence and risk--a lot of which appears in prose, but with a distinct difference. In prose, you can bumble some of your words, elaborate where desired, and go into detail and explanation, where in poetry you must be succinct, connotative and metaphorical. The majority of his ideal and speeches have been poetic, and this was truly more prosy. I'm sure it answered a lot of his critics' demand that he elaborate and explain though, but of course, not bumble. And if you comprehend my metaphor, you know how I feel about it all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)