By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Obama's jobs plan: "double our exports over the next five years" wtf?

Kasz216 on 29 January 2010
ManusJustus said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 I don't think what you wrote in F is true... there are layoffs all the time (and I've lived in 3 different European countries already). Whether the companies are making money or not.

Its not true, he just made it up.  Its actually very difficult to fire people in America.  American companies face a lot of legal issues when firing people.  In many cases, its better to keep somebody than to fire them and face legal repercussions.  Layoffs are a different beast altogether, its very easy for American and European countries to lay people off because business is bad, and they have no worries about legal issues unless contracts are involved.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ent_hir_fir_wor_dif_of_fir_ind-hiring-firing-workers-difficulty-index

Yeah... I'm guessing you didn't check the Source to that Nationmaster poll.  ALWAYS check the source.  You are reading the chart backwords.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/CustomQuery/Default.aspx?excel=false

 

The US diffculty scores are all 0's... aka the LOWEST and LEAST difficult. 

Well us and Australia anyway.

So you've found my proof for me.

 

Now France, Diffculty hiring... 67.  Difficulty firing.  40...  Cost of redundancy to the company in weeks of pay.  36.

Overall rating... like 158 or so. 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 29 January 2010
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 I don't think what you wrote in F is true... there are layoffs all the time (and I've lived in 3 different European countries already). Whether the companies are making money or not.

You'd be surprised... France and Germany have some pretty interesting laws on the matter.

Technically in France "Saving costs" is not a reason to fire somebody.  You have to prove their is a redundancy for example.

Usually the kind of places people talk about American Jobs going.

There is a reason why the rest of Europe tried to copy the Denmark method for employment but realized it was unworkable for larger nations that weren't so economically 1-sided.


I think Denmark was the one where 1/3rd of the country changes companies every year or two yet has really low unemployment.

 

Well I wouldn't know much about France or Germany, as the countries I mentioned have been Portugal, Denmark and now Sweden.

 

Although it does appear according to the chart Manus cited in an attempt to prove me wrong actually shows it's as easy to hire someone in the US as it is in any european state if not eaiser in many cases and the same with firing...

Putting the US number 1 when it comes to such things.  Higher then i actually expected.

Overall ease of doing Buisness is at 4 too which is surprisingly high... behind Singapore, Hong Kong... and another nation i can't find on that chart since it won't reorganize by category.

I know that "hertiage fondation" study has us at like... 30 or 40 or something for being a free market.

So add "overall easier to do buisness in" as a reason why you'd pay an american worker more, so you have to pay the government less and have a lot less hassles dealing with the government and various nebulous laws that are hard to understand and have little reason to exist.



SamuelRSmith on 29 January 2010

So, along with rapidly priniting money, Obama wants to increase exports as a ridiculously rapid rate? Methinks that the big issue at the next election will be dealing with excess inflation.

Not to mention that the best way to keep exports up (without ridiculous levels of subsidisation - which won't help him balance the Government budget) is to the deflate the currency - which would probably mean keeping interest rates ridiculously low, yet more inflation. That, and the idea of the Government essentially taking out policies to control their rate of exchange would be rather hypocritical - given the pressure on China to free up their currency.



TheRealMafoo on 29 January 2010

You missed one Kasz. Another reason to hire American workers, is that Obama will give you $5,000 if you do.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/28/smallbusiness/obama_jobs_plan/index.htm?hpt=T1

Well, the American people will give it to you. I think of all the sayings that I have heard, current washington can be best summed up with this one:

"There are two kinds of money in the world. My money, and your money".

When it's not your money, it's amazing how willing people are to part with it.



Kasz216 on 29 January 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
So, along with rapidly priniting money, Obama wants to increase exports as a ridiculously rapid rate? Methinks that the big issue at the next election will be dealing with excess inflation.

Not to mention that the best way to keep exports up (without ridiculous levels of subsidisation - which won't help him balance the Government budget) is to the deflate the currency - which would probably mean keeping interest rates ridiculously low, yet more inflation. That, and the idea of the Government essentially taking out policies to control their rate of exchange would be rather hypocritical - given the pressure on China to free up their currency.

Not to mention he's vowed a "budget freeze" in 2011.  So... I don't think they can use subsidies.  Maybe tariffs... but I mean... that'd be stupid.



Around the Network
NJ5 on 29 January 2010
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
So, along with rapidly priniting money, Obama wants to increase exports as a ridiculously rapid rate? Methinks that the big issue at the next election will be dealing with excess inflation.

Not to mention that the best way to keep exports up (without ridiculous levels of subsidisation - which won't help him balance the Government budget) is to the deflate the currency - which would probably mean keeping interest rates ridiculously low, yet more inflation. That, and the idea of the Government essentially taking out policies to control their rate of exchange would be rather hypocritical - given the pressure on China to free up their currency.

Not to mention he's vowed a "budget freeze" in 2011.  So... I don't think they can use subsidies.  Maybe tariffs... but I mean... that'd be stupid.

But he also announced spending on building trains which isn't going to start anytime soon.

So I think this "budget freeze" is probably BS.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kasz216 on 29 January 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
You missed one Kasz. Another reason to hire American workers, is that Obama will give you $5,000 if you do.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/28/smallbusiness/obama_jobs_plan/index.htm?hpt=T1

Well, the American people will give it to you. I think of all the sayings that I have heard, current washington can be best summed up with this one:

"There are two kinds of money in the world. My money, and your money".

When it's not your money, it's amazing how willing people are to part with it.

Well that's just silly.

I mean.. I guess that should create some 9-10 grand jobs.


Nothing too high paying though... since 5 grand really isn't that much of an incentive.



Kasz216 on 29 January 2010
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
So, along with rapidly priniting money, Obama wants to increase exports as a ridiculously rapid rate? Methinks that the big issue at the next election will be dealing with excess inflation.

Not to mention that the best way to keep exports up (without ridiculous levels of subsidisation - which won't help him balance the Government budget) is to the deflate the currency - which would probably mean keeping interest rates ridiculously low, yet more inflation. That, and the idea of the Government essentially taking out policies to control their rate of exchange would be rather hypocritical - given the pressure on China to free up their currency.

Not to mention he's vowed a "budget freeze" in 2011.  So... I don't think they can use subsidies.  Maybe tariffs... but I mean... that'd be stupid.

But he also announced spending on building trains which isn't going to start anytime soon.

So I think this "budget freeze" is probably BS.

 

I'd like to HOPE, he plans to cut waste to go along with that.

He'd previously identified TONS of redudant programs in government he wanted to get rid of.

The budget freeze threat i'm hoping is him getting his act together to "force" congress to get rid of some of these programs.

So far the only serious effort was made by a Republican to get rid of some of these plans to pay for an increase in GI benefits... and he was painted by Democrats and the Media as "Against the Troops" because he actually wanted to pay for the bill rather then blindly blank stamp it.

It's funny how the "against the troops" label turned so fast.  Both parties really are more alike then different.



Kasz216 on 29 January 2010
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
So, along with rapidly priniting money, Obama wants to increase exports as a ridiculously rapid rate? Methinks that the big issue at the next election will be dealing with excess inflation.

Not to mention that the best way to keep exports up (without ridiculous levels of subsidisation - which won't help him balance the Government budget) is to the deflate the currency - which would probably mean keeping interest rates ridiculously low, yet more inflation. That, and the idea of the Government essentially taking out policies to control their rate of exchange would be rather hypocritical - given the pressure on China to free up their currency.

Not to mention he's vowed a "budget freeze" in 2011.  So... I don't think they can use subsidies.  Maybe tariffs... but I mean... that'd be stupid.

But he also announced spending on building trains which isn't going to start anytime soon.

So I think this "budget freeze" is probably BS.

 

I'd like to HOPE, he plans to cut waste to go along with that.

He'd previously identified TONS of redudant programs in government he wanted to get rid of.  He just hasn't bothered to deal with it yet because of stuff like healthcare.

The budget freeze threat i'm hoping is him getting his act together to "force" congress to get rid of some of these programs.

So far the only serious effort was made by a Republican to get rid of some of these plans to pay for an increase in GI benefits... and he was painted by Democrats and the Media as "Against the Troops" because he actually wanted to pay for the bill rather then blindly blank stamp it.

It's funny how the "against the troops" label turned so fast.  Both parties really are more alike then different.



ManusJustus on 29 January 2010

So Great Britian, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, and Bulgaria aren't in Europe?

In any event, you admit that (or unable to argue against) that Europe has an economic advantage by providing public healthcare. Instead of looking at other, unrelated factors, you should ask yourself how can America improve in this area.