14 Jul 11
Originally posted by telerionI'll get back to you on that one. My business owner friend explained to me a couple of weeks ago how federal administrative policies are preventing small businesses from accessing capital, but I don't understand it clearly enough to debate it yet. Let me speak to him and revisit this issue.
I have to take a lot of exception to your third statement. How is he going to "order" his agencies to loosen credit markets? Banks and firms are awash in cash. Many households aren't in any position to borrow. The Fed has kept interest rates basically at zero for a couple years now and even brought down longer term rates through QE2. I think this is out of Obama's control.
14 Jul 11
Originally posted by vistesdI think of it as a coordination failure after a credit shock. The balance sheets of businesses and households took huge hits on the assets side.
Would you say that the problem is mostly on the demand side?
Businesses have for the most part recovered, but they are hesitant to hire new workers and start new projects when there is a decent risk that the economy will remain depressed.
Meanwhile, consumers would like to take advantage of these low interest rates and (for the most part) low prices, but they do not spend because they are trying to restore their own balance sheets (perhaps work through a foreclosure)/get a job/support an unemployed relative. Others that are in solid shape financially at the moment, are nevertheless saving because there is significant risk that they could be out of job in the near future.
If things happened simultaneously, businesses could suddenly hire and households, equipped with a more secure income stream, could start spending again. The only thing to work still would be the balance sheets, and that would happen more quickly with income flowing.
14 Jul 11
Originally posted by sh76Ok. I'm not really out to debate it. I'd just be interested in hearing his perspective.
I'll get back to you on that one. My business owner friend explained to me a couple of weeks ago how federal administrative policies are preventing small businesses from accessing capital, but I don't understand it clearly enough to debate it yet. Let me speak to him and revisit this issue.
15 Jul 11
Originally posted by telerionThanks, Tel.
I think of it as a coordination failure after a credit shock. The balance sheets of businesses and households took huge hits on the assets side.
Businesses have for the most part recovered, but they are hesitant to hire new workers and start new projects when there is a decent risk that the economy will remain depressed.
Meanwhile, consumers woul ...[text shortened]... work still would be the balance sheets, and that would happen more quickly with income flowing.
18 Jul 11
Originally posted by TheBloopIgnoring the obvious exaggeration in your interpretation of his remarks, what's actually wrong about Obama's point?
Obama blames the unemployment rate on ATM machines. Oh, and airport ticket kiosks.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/06/14/obama-atms-to-blame-for-high-unemployment/
Since the Industrial Revolution, advances in technology have reduced our dependence on manual labor.
19 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionObama's an idiot. 1) ATM machines need to be assembled. 2) ATM machines need to be serviced. 3) ATM machines need to be programmed The invention and proliferation of ATM machines created far more jobs than they "cost". Obama hasn't the foggiest idea how the private sector operates, and he obviously thinks that no one else does either. But just because a bank has an ATM machine, it doesn't mean that they got rid of teller positions.
Ignoring the obvious exaggeration in your interpretation of his remarks, what's actually wrong about Obama's point?
Since the Industrial Revolution, advances in technology have reduced our dependence on manual labor.
To use ATMs as an example of why there aren't any jobs out there is just idiotic.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 600,500 tellers in the U.S (in 2008). That number was (according to BLS) expected to grow by 37,000 over the next 8 years.
Also,
http://politisite.com/2011/06/16/fact-check-are-there-less-bank-tellers-because-of-atm-machines/
1985: Number of ATM machines = 60,000
1985: Number of tellers = 485,000
2002: Number of ATM machines = 352,000
2002: Number of tellers = 527,000
Obama obviously has no understanding of how a bank actually operates. Not surprising, really...he has no understanding of how ANYTHING operates.
But only an idiot would suggest that ATM machines have led to a loss of teller jobs.
btw, ATM machines also require that someone put the money in there. That person is, very often, a teller (actually, two tellers, since everything would be under dual control).
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by TheBloopIt should be obvious to even a right wing fanatic like you that ATMs reduce the number of transactions that are done by humans in a bank. There really isn't any question that there would be a lot more teller jobs IF there were no ATMs.
Obama's an idiot. 1) ATM machines need to be assembled. 2) ATM machines need to be serviced. 3) ATM machines need to be programmed The invention and proliferation of ATM machines created far more jobs than they "cost". Obama hasn't the foggiest idea how the private sector operates, and he obviously thinks that no one else does either. But j ...[text shortened]... s.
But only an idiot would suggest that ATM machines have led to a loss of teller jobs.
Obama's point is correct.
19 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionYou shouldn't equate reduced dependence on manual labor with a loss of jobs.
....Since the Industrial Revolution, advances in technology have reduced our dependence on manual labor.
The automobile put a lot of Mom and Pop horse and buggy businesses out of business... but did that mean that there were fewer jobs around? For horses, maybe, but not necessarily for people
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by TheBloopHere's an "idiot" from Forbes pointing out the obvious:
You shouldn't equate reduced dependence on manual labor with a loss of jobs.
The automobile put a lot of Mom and Pop horse and buggy businesses out of business... but did that mean that there were fewer jobs around? For horses, maybe, but not necessarily for people
All of which is what makes me wonder at the reaction to what the President said. Yes of course mechanisation of a task destroys the jobs of those who previously did the task. That's the whole point of mechanising the task. So as to free up that valuable labour so that it can go and do something else.
http://news.yahoo.com/atms-destroy-teller-jobs-yes-course-thats-point-060506571.html
Of course, it's a pro-business article that assumes that those people who didn't get the displaced teller jobs got other jobs. That assumption seems less clear given continuing high levels of un and under-employment.
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderIsn't this a matter of spending?
Here's an "idiot" from Forbes pointing out the obvious:
All of which is what makes me wonder at the reaction to what the President said. Yes of course mechanisation of a task destroys the jobs of those who previously did the task. That's the whole point of mechanising the task. So as to free up that valuable labour so that it can go and do s ...[text shortened]... That assumption seems less clear given continuing high levels of un and under-employment.
Certain jobs may be eliminated, but the business owner that increases his profits because of it may spend more because of it. Assuming he/she does that, other jobs should be created somewhere down the line, right?
In theory if the wealthiest people in the world hoard their money and don't spend much of it it could lead to higher unemployment.
19 Jul 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat's the trickle down model of economics but unfortunately the facts don't seem to support it.
Isn't this a matter of spending?
Certain jobs may be eliminated, but the business owner that increases his profits because of it may spend more because of it. Assuming he/she does that, other jobs should be created somewhere down the line, right?
In theory if the wealthiest people in the world hoard their money and don't spend much of it it could lead to higher unemployment.
19 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderObama is tying the unemployment situation to the creation of ATMs. So his "point" is NOT correct. The unemployment rate has not been over 9% for this long because of ATM machines and airport ticket kisoks, regardless of what you're being fed by Chris Matthews. There are no technological breakthroughs during the past two and a half years that have caused unemployment to skyrocket.
It should be obvious to even a right wing fanatic like you that ATMs reduce the number of transactions that are done by humans in a bank. There really isn't any question that there would be a lot more teller jobs IF there were no ATMs.
Obama's point is correct.