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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (79729)7/26/2010 1:54:50 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would suggest that current industry hiring practices has to do more with politics than reality.

There will be class warfare in this country yet.

Industries Find Surging Profits in Deeper Cuts

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: July 25, 2010

By most measures, Harley-Davidson has been having a rough ride. Motorcycle sales are falling in 2010, as they have for each of the last three years. The company does not expect a turnaround anytime soon.

But despite that drought, Harley’s profits are rising — soaring, in fact. Last week, Harley reported a $71 million profit in the second quarter, more than triple what it earned a year ago.

This seeming contradiction — falling sales and rising profits — is one reason the mood on Wall Street is so much more buoyant than in households, where pessimism runs deep and joblessness shows few signs of easing.

Many companies are focusing on cost-cutting to keep profits growing, but the benefits are mostly going to shareholders instead of the broader economy, as management conserves cash rather than bolstering hiring and production. Harley, for example, has announced plans to cut 1,400 to 1,600 more jobs by the end of next year. That is on top of 2,000 job cuts last year — more than a fifth of its work force.


As companies this month report earnings for the second quarter, news of healthy profits has helped the stock market — the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is up 7 percent for July — but the source of those gains raises deep questions about the sustainability of the growth, as well as the fate of more than 14 million unemployed workers hoping to rejoin the work force as the economy recovers.

“Because of high unemployment, management is using its leverage to get more hours out of workers,” said Robert C. Pozen, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and the former president of Fidelity Investments. “What’s worrisome is that American business has gotten used to being a lot leaner, and it could take a while before they start hiring again.”

And some of those businesses, including Harley-Davidson, are preparing for a future where they can prosper even if sales do not recover. Harley’s goal is to permanently be in a position to generate strong profits on a lower revenue base.

In some ways, the ability to raise profits in the face of declining sales is a triumph of productivity that makes the United States more globally competitive. The problem is that companies are not investing those earnings, instead letting cash pile up to levels not reached in nearly half a century.

“As long as corporations are reinvesting, the economy can grow,” said Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “But if they’re taking those profits and saving them, rather than buying new equipment, it hurts overall growth. The longer this goes on, the more you worry about income being diverted to a sector that’s not spending.”

“There’s no question that there is an income shift going on in the economy,” Mr. Harris added. “Companies are squeezing their labor costs to build profits.”


The trend is hardly limited to Harley. Giants like General Electric and JPMorgan Chase, as well as smaller companies like Hasbro, the toymaker, all improved their bottom lines despite slowing sales in the second quarter. Among the S.& P. 500 companies that have reported second-quarter results, more than one in 10 had higher profits on lower sales, nearly twice the number in a typical quarter before the recession, according to Thomson Reuters.

“Whole industries are operating at new levels of profitability,” said David J. Kostin, chief United States equity strategist at Goldman Sachs. “In the downturn, companies managed to maintain higher profit margins than ever before.”

Profit margins — the percentage of revenue left over after expenses — crumble in most recessions, as overall sales fall but fixed costs like infrastructure, commodities and rent remain the same. In 2002, during the recession that followed the bursting of the technology bubble in addition to the Sept. 11 attacks, margins sank to 4.7 percent. Although the most recent downturn was far more severe, profit margins bottomed out at 5.9 percent in 2009 and quickly rebounded. By next year, analysts expect margins to hit 8.9 percent, a record high.

The difference this time is that companies wrung more savings out of their work forces, said Neal Soss, chief economist for Credit Suisse in New York. In fact, while wages and salaries have barely budged from recession lows, profits have staged a vigorous recovery, jumping 40 percent between late 2008 and the first quarter of 2010.

Harley-Davidson’s profit gain last quarter was helped by a turnaround in its financing unit, as well as more efficient production, but the company is still cutting.

Harley has warned union employees at its Milwaukee factory that it would move production elsewhere in the United States if they did not agree to more flexible work rules and tens of millions in cost-saving measures.

Even if sales do improve, a surge in hiring is unlikely.

1 2 Next Page »

nytimes.com



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (79729)7/26/2010 1:58:50 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 149317
 
He can set policy right here. After caving into corporations on healthcare and finreg, he has one more chance to to make at least a small show of face for the working man.
----

Warren’s Candidacy Raises a Partisan Debate
finance.yahoo.com
On Monday July 26, 2010, 7:45 am EDT
Elizabeth Warren last week won the endorsements of several dozen Congressional Democrats, two of the nation’s leading labor groups and her hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe.

One would be forgiven for thinking that the Harvard professor is running for elected office.

Instead, Ms. Warren’s supporters want President Obama to nominate her as the first head of a new consumer financial protection bureau created by the legislation he signed into law last week. They say that Ms. Warren, who conceived the idea and helped shepherd its passage into law, is the only acceptable choice to finish the project.

“It is essential to the bill and very, very important that Elizabeth Warren be appointed,” Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and an architect of the law, said Friday on MSNBC.

There is little question that Ms. Warren has become a hero to liberals who see her as a scourge of the banking industry.

But the loud, insistent campaign — highly unusual for presidential appointments other than Supreme Court nominees or cabinet positions — also reflects deep anxiety that the work of overhauling financial regulation is shifting from Congress to agencies that are insulated from public pressure and will write and put into effect hundreds of new rules.

Ms. Warren’s supporters regard her as the best person to represent consumers during that process. But they also crave the symbolic value of her appointment, which almost certainly would cause a partisan confirmation battle, as an affirmation that the White House is committed to imposing significant new restrictions on the financial industry.

“A lot of us are terrified about what happens in rule-making,” said Stephen Lerner of the Service Employees International Union, which is pressing the administration to nominate Ms. Warren. “Symbolically, it does seem incredibly important to pick somebody who not only invented the idea, but someone who doesn’t claim to be a neutral.”

Bankers oppose her nomination for exactly that reason. Roger M. Beverage, head of the Oklahoma Bankers Association, said that Ms. Warren was widely respected in Oklahoma, where she was raised and is still remembered as a high school debate champion. But he said that his members did not believe she would understand the needs and concerns of community banks.

“Not that she’s not competent. Goodness gracious, I would never say that. She’s exceptionally bright. We just fear what she might come up with,” Mr. Beverage said. “She’s a partisan and she’s bull-headed and she’s opinionated. And she’s terrific. She’s a great advocate. We just respectfully disagree with her view of the world.”

Ms. Warren herself has not campaigned publicly for the nomination, though people who know her say that she would welcome it.

The debate over her candidacy threatens to sour the celebration of a law that the White House hoped would rally Democrats facing difficult midterm elections. The consumer bureau will be the popular face of the law, which also subjects more financial companies to federal oversight, extends regulation to activities including derivatives trading and creates a new council to detect risks to the financial system and broader economy.

So far, the administration has sought to walk a fine line, embracing Ms. Warren and her supporters while refraining from granting their demand. The White House has vetted Ms. Warren and at least two other candidates for the job, officials say.

“I have the highest regard for Elizabeth. We have not made decisions about who we’re going to appoint yet,” Mr. Obama said Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Ms. Warren proposed the creation of a federal agency to protect consumers of financial products, in a 2007 article that said the government put more effort in protecting people who buy toaster ovens than people who borrow money to buy homes.

The idea resonated with Mr. Obama and his senior advisers, and it became a centerpiece of the administration’s proposal to overhaul financial regulation. The White House worked with Ms. Warren to flesh out the details, and it worked with her to win the support of Congress. But some administration officials are not sure that Ms. Warren is the best choice to run the new agency.

There is no doubt about her status as a symbol.

“She represents to a large part of the country — not just people caught up in the damage of the crisis, but people who view this system as being fundamentally broken — she represents one of the most compelling advocates for reform,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said at a breakfast with reporters last week.

In an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Geithner cited what he called Ms. Warren’s “enormous credibility” and said that, despite her criticism of the Treasury Department, he had no concerns about her possible appointment.

But others have expressed doubts about Ms. Warren’s qualifications, including some Senate Democrats whose votes would be required to confirm her nomination. Detractors say that Ms. Warren lacks management experience, and that she is too partisan to be an effective referee.

The other known candidates are both consumer advocates who have more experience in government: Michael S. Barr, an assistant Treasury secretary who played a central role in drafting the financial legislation, and Eugene I. Kimmelman, a former consumer advocate, now deputy assistant attorney general in the antitrust division of the Justice Department.

Even some admirers worry that a draining confirmation battle could weaken the new bureau during the critical period when its scope and powers are being defined by its early decisions.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, warned last week that it would be difficult to gather the 60 votes to confirm Ms. Warren.

But her supporters are spoiling for the fight.

With midterm elections fast approaching, they are itching for a public debate about consumer protection. There also is frustration among some liberals that the White House has in several instances chosen not to take up the issues that they consider most important.

Mr. Frank said that liberals would be justified in holding Mr. Obama accountable for this decision.

“We didn’t get a public option and other things we wanted. That wasn’t his fault,” said Mr. Frank, referring to the removal of a major provision from health care legislation. “The economic recovery bill, the stimulus, it wasn’t as big as it should have been. That wasn’t his fault. He couldn’t get the votes.

“With regard to appointing Elizabeth Warren, that’s his decision. No one can stop him from making it.”