Hopey Changie!

ZappasGuitar said:
Uh-huh...whatever.

And you've got the PROOF to back up that assertion, don't you?:readit:
Click to expand...

Are you trying to assert that the companies that layed off employees, were just laying off dead wood??

You have shown that you truly don't understand anything about business and probably have never worked for a company in your life.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you trying to assert that the companies that layed off employees, were just laying off dead wood??

You have shown that you truly don't understand anything about business and probably have never worked for a company in your life.
Click to expand...

focus like a laserbeam sunshine...this isn't about what you think I'm trying to assert...it's about your comment and the lack of proof you've got to back up your "point"?


So that would be NO...you DON'T have the proof to back up your ridiculous allegation that "companies can't afford to lay off many more, or they'll have to start closing."

All you had to say was you were lying when you made that claim...everyone already knew it and it would have saved you lots of time...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
focus like a laserbeam sunshine...this isn't about what you think I'm trying to assert...it's about your comment and the lack of proof you've got to back up your "point"?


So that would be NO...you DON'T have the proof to back up your ridiculous allegation that "companies can't afford to lay off many more, or they'll have to start closing."

All you had to say was you were lying when you made that claim...everyone already knew it and it would have saved you lots of time...
Click to expand...

I'm siting here laughing at you, while you show your ignorance of practical business practices.

Let me lay it out in a form you might be able to understand.

The economy is bad, the business isn't making money and need to lay off 1/5 of their emploiyees.
They normally have 100 workers and now can only support 80.
A year later business is still bad and they have to do another layoff of 1/5 of their workers.
This time they only lay off 16.
Since the first time it was 20 and now it's 16, does this mean that things are better.

If you get a chance, you might want to take some classes that involve business and business practices.
I'm sure that a small community college would be able to meet the need, without a huge expense.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm siting here laughing at you, while you show your ignorance of practical business practices.

Let me lay it out in a form you might be able to understand.

The economy is bad, the business isn't making money and need to lay off 1/5 of their emploiyees.
They normally have 100 workers and now can only support 80.
A year later business is still bad and they have to do another layoff of 1/5 of their workers.
This time they only lay off 16.
Since the first time it was 20 and now it's 16, does this mean that things are better.

If you get a chance, you might want to take some classes that involve business and business practices.
I'm sure that a small community college would be able to meet the need, without a huge expense.
Click to expand...


Nice little anecdote, but what does it have to do with you not offering any proof to back up your earlier comment?

You remember this one:

Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911

"The reason the loses are down to only 11,000; is that companies can't afford to lay off many more, or they'll have to start closing."

Proof...not Damo's cute little story.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Nice little anecdote, but what does it have to do with you not offering any proof to back up your earlier comment?

You remember this one:

Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911

"The reason the loses are down to only 11,000; is that companies can't afford to lay off many more, or they'll have to start closing."

Proof...not Damo's cute little story.
Click to expand...

If you're so sure I'm incorrect, you could always try to refute it; but then, that would mean you actually having to do something and be held accountable for it.
But since everyone knows that you can't, we'll just have to accept the fact that you have no knowledge of how the real world runs.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Nice little anecdote, but what does it have to do with you not offering any proof to back up your earlier comment?

You remember this one:

Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911

"The reason the loses are down to only 11,000; is that companies can't afford to lay off many more, or they'll have to start closing."

Proof...not Damo's cute little story.
Click to expand...

It's an obvious fact. Recessions lead to layoffs because of declining sales. Once capacity is reduced to a level near the lower demand any more layoffs are only going to hurt the bottom line.
 
Damocles said:
Continued job loss at this point is very bad, it shows a fundamental issue with our economy that this administration is trying to avoid talking about (rightfully so, it's not good to talk down the economy when you are President it makes things worse).

I gave a direct example of why such an indicator doesn't mean good things, take that previous example and multiply it by millions of companies. Less job loss isn't "good" at this point, it is a reflection that the same issue is underlying that caused the collapse to begin with.
Click to expand...

Seems it did indicate a good trend that has continued well into the posatives.
 
Damocles said:
No, I claim that this specifically is not a sign of it getting better. You are disingenuous. Things are looking as if we've hit bottom and can expect things to get better, but the layoffs are not a sign of this. I have explained why that is.
Click to expand...

It was a sign that things were getting better, the trend continued well into the posatives!
 
Superfreak said:
1) 5 year ARM resets from 2005

2) Credit card defaults increasing

3) Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland... any one can trigger a meltdown in Europe

4) China... tightening its credit and removing stimulus to control inflation and slow growth.

5) Mortgage defaults continuing to rise (which likely will lead to more foreclosures)

6) CA... can they survive without a Federal bailout? Doubtful... but can the Fed bail them out? If they do, it sets a bad precedent. (this is a similar situation to what the wealthier EU countries are facing with the countries in number 3)

7) Deficit spending is out of control

8) Unemployment is likely going to remain above 9% for at least the remainder of this year if not longer... which will cause consumer spending on the whole to remain tight

9) Commercial real estate... sitting on the edge of another implosion if credit doesn't start loosening up

There are a lot of things sitting on the edge right now. If we don't start addressing some of these problems, we will see the double dip.
Click to expand...

You should really be patting President Obama on the back right now, with all that against him we avoided the double dip!
 
Superfreak said:
Um... yes, a second dip would be a new decline. Which would be a sign that they did not solve the major problems facing this nation, but rather created a stop gap that gave us temporary relief. Instead of focusing on solving the long term problems, your messiah instead tried to cram a health care bill down our throats that would have enhanced the problems we face.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top