SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (452836)1/31/2009 11:58:41 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571141
 
If energy subsidies and other forms of spending make sense, they makes sense to have as part of the normal budget process.

And I've made that argument many times. If we had done it we might not be in this mess, or it might not be as bad.

They aren't for the most part quick and timely stimulus items.

Yes they are. I can have someone out here next week adding insulation, putting in more energy efficient windows and doors. I could go out this afternoon and buy a more energy efficient automobile. Might take a month to spec out and put up solar energy roof panels. All those things would require people to do the work and manufacturers to replace the materials, which would put other people to work. Plus, starting immediately, I would have lower energy bills.

I'm skeptical about the whole idea of government stimulus, but if your not (like the economist I quote below), than the best stimulus is probably some form of tax cut (perhaps on payroll taxes, if your aim is to increase employment, or if you have a problem with "tax cuts for the rich"), so that you stimulate the economy, but let the market determine where the extra workers can be best employed.

Won't work. People are hording money or reducing debt. Which might work very long term but won't help at all short term.

The problem we have is a downward cycle... unemployment leads to defaults and less spending which leads to higher unemployment which leads to defaults and less spending which leads to ... ... ... and it appears to be getting out of control and accelerating.

So how do you stop the cycle?



To: TimF who wrote (452836)2/1/2009 12:22:47 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1571141
 
"Gary Goldstein, president and CEO of Whitney Partners, an executive search group specializing in financial services, said changing the way compensation is distributed will be a change for the good.

"It has become very corrupt," Goldstein said. "I've watched it over the years and everyone was taking their piece of the pie ... and not paying attention to the end game, which is the little guy who ends up with all of these securities on their retirement accounts."

Bonuses at big banks could slide a lot further, and they won't come back to recent heights anytime soon, experts warned.

Johnson forecast a 15 percent to 20 percent drop in bonuses at the world's biggest financial firms this year, following a 45 percent decline in 2008.

"Any amount is too much," Johnson said of bonuses. "If you think it's bad now, it's going to be worse in '09."

Bonuses were excessive in recent years because factors like deregulation created outsized opportunities, an academic study published last month showed.

The study, by New York University Professor Thomas Philippon and University of Virginia Professor Ariell Reshef, found that 30-50 percent of the extra pay Wall Street employees got relative to the rest of the private sector over the last decade could be termed excess pay, or pay not justified by factors like education or technology.

There was a similar spike in relative pay just before the Great Depression in the 1930s, and financial sector compensation took many years to recover once it plummeted.


"The spike has passed, and people on Wall Street will be treated more like everybody else," said Roy Smith, finance professor at New York University and a former partner at Goldman Sachs.

Not every Wall Street employee will stand for it. Many will try to find jobs at smaller firms, which are not receiving support from the government and therefore do not have to limit pay.

But many will have to leave the industry altogether, said Robert Sedgwick, a lawyer at Morrison Cohen LLP in New York who negotiates executive pay packages."There are not nearly enough smaller places to go," Robert Sedgwick."


uk.reuters.com



To: TimF who wrote (452836)2/2/2009 6:44:03 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1571141
 
As unemployment rises, Uncle Sam has jobs
Story user rating:

By DEB RIECHMANN
Published: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economic downturn has forced private industry and state and local government to shed jobs, but one major employer in the country is hiring: The federal government.

While the nation's 11 million unemployed and the millions more who fear losing their jobs may feel Washington should streamline too, economists say a strong federal work force is key to economic recovery. Were President Barack Obama to put any of the nearly 2 million federal civil servants out in the street in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the consequences could be dire.

"Federal belt-tightening would worsen the problem right now," said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "Most economists agree that the federal government is a built-in stabilizer," said Hassett, a former adviser to GOP presidential campaigns.

Obama's proposed $800-plus billion economic aid plan, which includes heavy spending on public works, is expected to increase the ranks of government workers, although mostly at the state and local level.

That measure is working its way through Congress just as Microsoft Corp., Pfizer, Caterpillar, Home Depot and scores of other companies are shedding workers, and governors are asking or ordering state workers to accept furloughs, salary reductions, truncated workweeks or reduced benefits.

Simply letting federal workers go is "penny-wise and pound foolish," said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that works to revitalize the government and its work force. "We had a situation where we had a single person monitoring toys coming in from abroad. The result: You get lead-tainted toys coming in to the country," Stier said. "We need people looking out for the public good."

Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University, also thinks more, not fewer, federal workers are needed on the front lines. He said other steps could be taken to trim costs. The Obama administration has suggested reducing the number of managers at the middle levels, he said.

"That would be a good thing," Light said. "What he hasn't suggested is that we reduce political appointees at the senior level. I just think you could do some things to say to the public, 'Look, the federal government is going to make its share of sacrifice and it's more than just having energy-efficient buildings.'"

The government's civilian, nonmilitary work force peaked in the late 1960s at about 2.3 million. It was 2 million or more through the mid-1990s, when the government cut more than 400,000 jobs - many through military base closings. Since 2001, civilian employment in the executive branch, excluding postal employees, has edged upward from 1.7 million to about 2 million, largely because of new homeland security jobs.

More federal job openings are on the horizon.

A report released in January by Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, an economic policy adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, predicted that more than 90 percent of the 3 million to 4 million jobs that Obama proposes to save or create would be in the private sector.

But the report also estimated that 244,000 government jobs - some at the federal level, but more at the state and local level - would be created or saved.

That was based on a $600 billion stimulus package; the one being debated in Congress is more than $800 billion.

Moreover, many baby boomers who are getting government paychecks are at retirement age. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that 58 percent of supervisory and 42 percent of nonsupervisory workers who were on the federal payroll as of October 2004 will be eligible to retire by the end of next year. The financial meltdown, however, has prompted some to delay retirement.

Cynthia Bascetta, 56, director of health care at the Government Accountability Office, has 31 years of federal service under her belt. She said she thought retiring in these troubled economic times was too risky. So she will wait at least a year to retire, even though she recently moved to Fredericksburg, Va., and now has to commute by train to her job in Washington.

"I know of a few people who feel as though they need to stay because they have children they need to put through college, and they've lost a lot in college funds," she said. "Others are just anxious about their financial situation."

Other older workers are seeking federal jobs, which come with job security, health and life insurance, a federal retirement program, paid vacations and leave and other benefits.

When the national job market began tightening in the first quarter of last year, FedJobs.com, a business that has been helping federal job hunters since 1974, started hearing from 50- to 65-year-olds instead of 25- to 40-year-olds.

"All of a sudden, it's a much older clientele calling up saying they're interested in government work because they lost their jobs, their companies merged, their companies went bankrupt and they're looking for stability," said Ross Harris, sales and marketing director for the site. "The perception is that federal work is more stable - that there aren't as many layoffs."

Rising unemployment and excitement about working for Obama combined to motivate about 350,000 people to apply for 3,000 to 4,000 political appointee positions in his new administration. Jumping to the federal payroll, however, doesn't necessarily mean moving to the nation's capital; more than 80 percent of federal civil workers are employed outside the Washington metro area.

Federal employment has not completely escaped the impact of the economic downturn, While no government-wide hiring freeze has gone into effect, some departments and agencies are taking belt-tightening moves.

Obama, for example, froze the pay of some White House employees.

"During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," Obama said.

But it was a symbolic move. The pay freeze only affects roughly 100 White House employees earning more than $100,000 a year.

AP Mobile News Network. © 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.