Comments on: An equal opportunity recession? Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: commonman Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:05:36 +0000 In the name of recession and global slowdown, many companies engaged in job cuts. Instead, companies should request its employees to work with lesser pay and retain their jobs, until the economic recovery. Many people agree with this idea and even trade unions agree with it. I think, this experiment will largely succeed and the employee feel loyalty to the organisation.On the other hand, company can retain better skilled staff instead of finding new staff and train them with new environment. Pay cuts is necessary at top executive level. Job insecurity is hunting Americans minds and their respective govt. and corporations find a better solution like retaining their employees through pay cuts if they are willing to work. It is a cyclic reaction in the economy. If the employees survive, then only corporate will survive,govt. will survive.

Half hungry is sometime good for innovate new things. If they are full hungry and feel full insecurity, then there is no room for innovation and creativity. It will definitely create chaos, violence and criminal action. Is the corporate world and American and EU nations listening to me?!

By: John Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:53:20 +0000 They weren’t all “taken advantage” of – a large majority lied about their income and more to cash in on the GREED in the housing market. The GREED was color blind – EVERYONE jumped on. Now you want to make it a race issue – another sad, easy and cop-out commentary when things go wrong, it must be racial.

By: Anonymous Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:59:14 +0000 “That is contributing to the overall ecomony (sic! – A.), albeit not exactly what some people wish it was.”

Posted by MJ

If you believe the goal of the bailout should be creation of more McJobs and support of Chinese manufacturing – that’s your right, the 1st Amendment is still on the books. However it’s my right to disagree with it under the same 1st Amendment.
Back then, when McDonnell Douglas was still in existence, it was said that McDonalds job is not an equivalent replacement of a McDonnell Douglas job. Still holds true. Stimulating creation of McJobs at the expense of more skilled, better paid jobs (the bailout, no matter how big, is still finite resource) will result only in Middle Class of today becoming the Poor of tomorrow.
Like it or not, American manufacturing has shrunk. The most notable manufacturers still surviving are auto and aircraft makers. The poor don’t buy new cars, and not supposed to. If they do, then whoever underwrote their auto loan is either brainless or a crook, and the whole thing most likely will result in repo. Is that the kind of economical activity you’d want to see growing?
Aircraft orders more or less correlate with the intensity of air travel. The poor simply can’t afford flyaway vacations – even middle class hardly can in today’s economy. If the poor still buy flyaway vacation – then whoever underwrote their credit card is either brainless or a crook, and the whole thing most likely will result in either default or enslavement of the card holder by sky high interest payments for years to come. Is that the kind of economical activity you’d want to see growing?
If we want to revive domestic economy, we must first and foremost empower the consumers of domestic goods and services, and that is the middle class. It is the middle class (and above) that buys cars and houses. It’s the middle class that uses financial, travel, telecom, whatever services. And that’s the industries that create decent jobs, including the ones that don’t require high education and skill level. And who benefits from these low skill jobs? Exactly the poor, and that’s their chance on upward mobility, the lack of which you lament. You can disparage the trickle down approach all you want, but that’s how it works.

By: Stan Hirtle Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:39:51 +0000 Those who think that the disadvantage of race is a twentieth century phenomenon should look at the 16th century, when Americans decided that Africans should be enslaved rather than treated as equals. The law of slavery is gone but the social consequences have never been eliminated, like they were for once oppressed immigrant groups like the Irish and Chinese. We have poverty, unemployment, failing schools and their consequence, high prison populations as a result.
And as one person pointed out, the poor and minorities did not invent bad mortgages and complex derivatives that have brought down the financial system and with it businesses, consumption and employment. Neither did the Community Reinvestment Act or Fannie Mae. Blaming the victims is bad policy. Rather the “welfare queens” of today are getting million dollar bonuses from AIG and similar bailout recipients. If anything the finance industry took advantage of the decline of local lenders and replacement with global financial institutions unconnected to local communities, inflation in home values, and stagnant wages and decline of the social safety net, so that the consumer economy needed to be maintained by borrowing. All this was enabled by a regulatory system that was dysfunctional at the private, state and federal level.
The first thing to do is fix bad mortgages so they are fixed, affordable and related to the real value of the property. Take over insolvent banks, recapitalize them into smaller, more broadly owned banks that can be privatized. We also need to give more of the fruits of labor to working people and less to owners to spread the wealth in the tradition of Henry Ford rather than concentrating it in the tradition of George Bush. And we need to reregulate the entire financial sector to prevent these and similar abuses from reoccurring, and fund the regulators so they can do their jobs. Ultimately we need to invest more in our communities, keep local factories up with technologies, and prevent abuses around the world from undermining us at home.
As for minorities, we need to invest heavily in improving their school systems, not just with money but with know how and experience. And there need to be jobs paying good wages at the end of the tunnel.

By: MJ Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:10:11 +0000 One issue that strikes me is that “the Poor” is being consider as an underclass by the majority of the responses to this article, like a whole different type of Americans, with no goals or aspirations.
There was a time when the American Society had upward mobility, when the Middle Class of today was the Upper Middle Class of tomorrow.
All the talk of self-defeatism is frankly, Un-American and Un-Patriotic. This temporary recession has uncovered all the racism and mediocrity that is harbored in the hearts and minds of so many.
So what if -as stated by some Anonymous- poor people spend their money on Fast Food and Discount Chains? There are people working on this places, and these businesses pay the lease, pay the truckers who bring the goods from wherever, pay the electric bill, pay the janitor. That is contributing to the overall ecomony, albeit not exactly what some people wish it was.
If you want the money to really impact the economy, ask to know where the billions of dollars that have evaporated from the ecomony have gone, starting with one certain Enron collapse. Did that improve the lives of anyone? Are you mad and raging with these people as much as you are against “The Poor”, to whom you blame all 21st century american calamites?
Maybe we cannot change the eating and shopping habits of millions of people, but we can contribute by making their lifes a little better, so they can become the Middle Class of tomorrow, because they are Americans too, as deserving and potentially valuable.

By: Anonymous Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:17:39 +0000 “Channeling dollars to individuals and communities that need them most will immediately stimulate the economy and save and create jobs because families living on the margins of survival will pour those recovery dollars immediately back into the economy through spending on food, medicine, clothing, child care, energy, transportation and other necessities.”
Sorry, it ain’t so. And if anyone expects me to suggest that the money would be wasted on booze and drugs – I’m not going to. I would even suggest that the money given directly to the poor would be spent firstly to get current on the newly modified mortgages. Let’s say that’s where 50% of the money would go (I don’t pretend for this number being anywhere close to correct – just the first number that came to mind). How about the other 50% left after the loans are dealt with?
Definitely there’ll be not much difference seen in local grocery stores. People don’t really change their eating habits overnight just because of money being or not being available. They still are eating even while getting more and more behind on their loans. If, by a miracle or Uncle Sam’s helping hand, the loans get paid off/modified/rescinded, they would still eat, and a person can eat only that much. Maybe it would mean more expensive cuts of meat, or some tasty treats that are not a necessity but oh-so-craved for, but that’s not much of a change. Besides, with more money in the pocket people would eat out more and shop for groceries less. I don’t see much of economic growth potential here.
They’d drive more, and count miles and gallons less. But are oil companies and Arab sheiks the intended recipients of bailout funds?
Local fast food joints and discounters will surely see more sales. They might even hire more. But burger flipper or Walmart greeter is not the type of positions both Mr. Carr and the government want to be created. And the goods sold at the likes of Walmart are mostly imported from China. How many examples of apparel, or electronics, or toys, or whatever, proudly displaying “Made in USA” label have you seen there lately? So don’t expect American manufacturers to get the benefit from higher Walmart sales. Are Chinese Communists the intended recipients of bailout funds?
The most economic impact would be seen if the bailout money were channeled to the middle class instead, without regard to color, ethnic origin, gender, whatever. Middle class is much more likely than the poor to buy goods and, especially, services based domestically. Middle class, if only because of generally higher education comparing to the poor, is much more responsible in their economic decisions.
And playing the racial card is irresponsible, especially in the times as difficult as it is now. If there’s one thing President Obama needs the least, it’s racial tensions, let alone riots like LA’92.

By: John Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:28:41 +0000 The problem with sub-prime and fraudulent mortgage practices isn’t that minorities were unfairly targeted – everyone was targeted. It just happens that minorities were unable to figure out they need to understand fully what they are signing, have attorneys review everything they are signing and that if a $700,000 house with a $1,500 mortgage seems too good to be true, it is.

Yes, that was the vast majority of the problem – people wanting something for nothing now crying about not being able to keep it. I have seen this first hand where live and it was completely out of control.

One other note – the mortgage broker who so unfairly targeted minorities were you guessed it – minorities themselves. What a big surprise.

But let’s all forget about accountability and beg for another hand out because hard work, education and determination to get what you want is too darn hard. Just give it to me.

By: B.C. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:11:44 +0000 I hate to burst your bubble, Kiki, but it turns out that the greatest welfare queens of all are sitting in fancy executive suites. Or have you been missing the headlines lately? I do not necessarily agree with everything Mr. Carr says, but I admire him for how he has chosen to live his life. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be in his shoes and read all this sickening invective against people of color, immigrants and the poor. We have tried cash subsidies, education schemes and a raft of other policies. We have had both success and failure. But the truth is that the world will change and change utterly only when EVERYONE thinks like Mr. Carr, who no doubt could have just about any job, house, vacation and giant-screen TV he wanted and instead looks for ways to provide better opportunities for all of us.

By: Bill Martin Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:49:07 +0000 I would agree that “race” based rhetoric of this nature is very 20th century and it is certainly time to move on.
I welcome more immigrants from Africa to come to this country to set a good example
of upward mobility.

By: Anonymous Coward Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:48:19 +0000 When the property bubble began to burst much of the blame was placed on sub-prime mortgages. These mortgages, offered to traditionally ‘higher risk’ borrowers, were in part driven by the community reinvestment act (CRA) as a counter to red-lining. If the CRA worked, it should have put mortgages into the hands of lower income communities, which correlates strongly with black and hispanic communities. Let’s assume it did… So what’s the surprise that these lower income communities are taking a hit with foreclosures? It was the non-market driven distortion of a government regulation, CRA, that forced, or at miminum encouraged, banks to make subprime mortgages available. Now these have blown up (that’s how markets work, you know, bad stuff blows up), it’s hardly a surprise that the biggest loss is where it is. But it’s very hard to see any inequity on the downside as a ‘current’ issue – it’s just the echo of the 1977 government distortion.