The PokéCommunity Forums Off Topic Discussions Off-Topic
CEO Threatens to fire workers if Obama is reelected

Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old October 15th, 2012 (12:28 PM). Edited October 15th, 2012 by Mr. X.
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
The CEO of a massive timeshare company sent an email about the upcoming election to his employees yesterday, threatening to fire some of them if President Obama wins re-election.

David Siegel, who owns Florida-based Westgate Resorts, sent an email to all his employees yesterday to discuss the upcoming election. “The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job,” Siegel wrote, noting that the company is “the most profitable [it's] ever been.” “What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration.” He went on to say that although he “can’t tell you whom to vote for,” if Obama is re-elected, it would mean “fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.”

Here are a few select paragraphs from the email:

Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can’t tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.

[...]

So where am I going with all this? It’s quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn’t? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the “1 percenters” are bad, I’m telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won’t be at the hands of the “1%”; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You can view the email in full here.

Siegel earned national notoriety this year for his quest to build the biggest house in America, “a sprawling, 90,000-square-foot mansion inspired by Versailles.”

In a bizarre twist, Siegel’s email was modeled after a fake letter that made the rounds on the internet during the last presidential election. He confirmed his own email’s authenticity in a phone call to Gawker, saying that “it speaks the truth” and gives employees “something to think about when they go to the polls.”

ThinkProgress reached out to Siegel for comment, but no response was given.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/09/978211/david-siegel-fire-employees/?mobile=nc

Full Email
Spoiler:
Quote:
Subject: Message from David Siegel
Date:Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [David Siegel]
To: [All employees]

To All My Valued Employees,

As most of you know our company, Westgate Resorts, has continued to succeed in spite of a very dismal economy. There is no question that the economy has changed for the worse and we have not seen any improvement over the past four years. In spite of all of the challenges we have faced, the good news is this: The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.The current administration and members of the press have perpetuated an environment that casts employers against employees. They want you to believe that we live in a class system where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. They label us the "1%" and imply that we are somehow immune to the challenges that face our country. This could not be further from the truth. Sure, you may have heard about the big home that I'm building. I'm sure many people think that I live a privileged life. However, what you don't see or hear is the true story behind any success that I have achieved.

I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. We didn't eat in fancy restaurants or take expensive vacations because every dollar I made went back into this company. I drove an old used car, and often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business — hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, many of my friends got regular jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a nice income, and they spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into this business —-with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford to buy whatever I wanted. Even to this day, every dime I earn goes back into this company. Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.

Just think about this – most of you arrive at work in the morning and leave that afternoon and the rest of your time is yours to do as you please. But not me- there is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have that freedom. I eat, live, and breathe this company every minute of the day, every day of the week. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. I know many of you work hard and do a great job, but I'm the one who has to sign every check, pay every expense, and make sure that this company continues to succeed. Unfortunately, what most people see is the nice house and the lavish lifestyle. What the press certainly does not want you to see, is the true story of the hard work and sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits, but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the costs of running a business have gotten out of control, and let me tell you why: We are being taxed to death and the government thinks we don't pay enough. We pay state taxes, federal taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and unemployment taxes. I even have to hire an entire department to manage all these taxes. The question I have is this: Who is really stimulating the economy? Is it the Government that wants to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not, or is it people like me who built a company out of his garage and directly employs over 7000 people and hosts over 3 million people per year with a great vacation?

Obviously, our present government believes that taking my money is the right economic stimulus for this country. The fact is, if I deducted 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, that's what happens to me.

Here is what most people don't understand and the press and our Government has chosen to ignore – to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve. They don't want you to know that the "1%", as they like to label us, pay more than 31% of all the taxes in this country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, "democracy" will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate business, not kill it. However, the power brokers in Washington believe redistributing wealth is the essential driver of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change they want.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss,

David Siegel


Corporate greed at it's finest peeps. He's willing to ruin the livelihoods of a lot of people, just to save himself money that he would never have a need for anyway.
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

  #2    
Old October 15th, 2012 (12:38 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,269
And yet half the country will still for a man much similar to this guy.


This is also the guy from that documentary last year who built a house akin to the Versailles Palace in France. Good to see the that the big business sector is in the charge of such admirable and thoughtful men like this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old October 15th, 2012 (1:27 PM).
LividZephyr LividZephyr is offline
Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Send a message via AIM to LividZephyr Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to LividZephyr
He makes sense, really, but the way he's going about it is foolhardy and appears to be greedy. He's simply pointing out that he'd need to lay off a lot of people if this administration continues, but doing so in an extremely politically-charged way that is almost forcing his employees to vote the way he wants them to. Due to its nature, I believe this is illegal. He can't tell them who to vote for, but he's telling them who NOT to vote for. Isn't that the same thing?

I do agree that the unemployment or jobless numbers are heavily due to the current administration and its inability to do anything about it. But each person should decide for themselves - do they want another four years of this, or do they want to take a risk with Romney? Either way... it might not be pretty...
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old October 15th, 2012 (3:55 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,383
Explain to me, just how higher taxes would harm him.

He'd still be a billionaire, he'd still be making way more money then he, or any single person, would ever need. And, he'd still be able to invest money in his company and still have more spendable income then the entirety of of some towns.

I'll tell you. It's nothing more then greed, plain and simple. All that they give a **** about is the green paper, nothing more. They will do anything to get more, even if they will never use it, and they will do anything to prevent it from leaving their bank accounts, even if they will never use it.

Can you justify their greed?
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old October 15th, 2012 (4:02 PM).
Katamari's Avatar
Katamari Katamari is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
This part is what kills me
Quote:
However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.
That's his cocky way of saying, "I'm telling you who to vote for, even though I'm being the 'nice-jackass' pretending to give you an option, but you really don't hahahaha."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old October 15th, 2012 (4:02 PM).
Blade_of_darkness Blade_of_darkness is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Nature: Rash
Posts: 595
Send a message via Skype™ to Blade_of_darkness
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Corporate greed at it's finest peeps.
Finer words have never been spoken than this. People like them need to know that there are better ways to get around these problems, while still making money. Also, they really should pay attention to their profits, & if they don't lose all of it, there's very little reason to lay people off, other than the owner being greedy.
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old October 15th, 2012 (4:34 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
He makes sense, really, but the way he's going about it is foolhardy and appears to be greedy. He's simply pointing out that he'd need to lay off a lot of people if this administration continues, but doing so in an extremely politically-charged way that is almost forcing his employees to vote the way he wants them to.
The CEO of a Billion dollar Real Estate company doesn't need to lay off anyone for "budget cuts", and The Obama Administration has nothing to do with that. Seigal had some money issues because of A, he built his business on easy money during the years before the Real Estate bubble burst (Before '08), and B, he blew a ton of capital on some ridiculous pet projects of his.

Quote:
Due to its nature, I believe this is illegal. He can't tell them who to vote for, but he's telling them who NOT to vote for. Isn't that the same thing?
It's basically extortion.

Quote:
I do agree that the unemployment or jobless numbers are heavily due to the current administration and its inability to do anything about it. But each person should decide for themselves - do they want another four years of this, or do they want to take a risk with Romney? Either way... it might not be pretty...
You mean the steadily falling jobless numbers, the improving economy, or how the House of Representatives blocked the Jobs Bill? (along with everything else)
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old October 15th, 2012 (5:02 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,383
I'm just waiting for the lawsuits from when someone does get layed off.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old October 15th, 2012 (5:23 PM).
Riku's Avatar
Riku Riku is offline
Who cares to know, eh Bubbles?
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 419
Another thing that should be pointed out I should think, if anyone intends on defending the man's character, is the slip of the tongue statement he made that, when pressed further upon, basically had him admit that he helped Bush win and, to quote: "...it may not necessarily have been legal."

What the details for how he did this are, I've yet to find out, but I'm working on it. However, I felt it appropriate to tie in to the OP to further show that the man has a questionable history already. Source for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/david-siegel-george-w-bush-election_n_1725152.html

You can find it everywhere though I'm sure, not just Huffington.

Now, as far as this goes, I'm pretty sure this is illegal, because to my knowledge of it, this is textbook extortion. A vote may not be a physical item, but it is still the property I would think of each individual. Threatening to fire someone in response to them not giving you their vote, or rather the group you support's vote, is straight up extortion I'd think. :/ The man is an idiot who was lucky and made his money in a boom and lost it due to his own fiscal irresponsibility (which he hasn't learned from, iirc. Pretty sure he's resuming or about to resume construction on his palace) as well as the 2008 bust, and he's taking it out on his employees. Greed and ignorance and bigotry is all it is, nothing more and nothing less, aside from the potential legal involvement that may arise from it.
__________________
pairfamilycredittheme

Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old October 15th, 2012 (7:41 PM).
LividZephyr LividZephyr is offline
Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Send a message via AIM to LividZephyr Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to LividZephyr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
The CEO of a Billion dollar Real Estate company doesn't need to lay off anyone for "budget cuts", and The Obama Administration has nothing to do with that. Seigal had some money issues because of A, he built his business on easy money during the years before the Real Estate bubble burst (Before '08), and B, he blew a ton of capital on some ridiculous pet projects of his.
I don't like this guy, because his methods are greedy for sure. He's probably exaggerating what he'd have to do due to his own personal wealth. A lot of corporate bigshots work like this and give themselves bonuses while their employees take paychecks. I know he's a loser. I don't like him.


Quote:
You mean the steadily falling jobless numbers, the improving economy, or how the House of Representatives blocked the Jobs Bill? (along with everything else)
The unemployment rate is only down because so many people quit looking and therefore are not a part of the work force. That means the economy is improving? News to me!
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old October 15th, 2012 (8:20 PM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post

The unemployment rate is only down because so many people quit looking and therefore are not a part of the work force. That means the economy is improving? News to me!
Got any figures to demonstrate that? The Bureau of Labor Statistics says otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old October 15th, 2012 (8:52 PM).
LividZephyr LividZephyr is offline
Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Send a message via AIM to LividZephyr Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to LividZephyr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Got any figures to demonstrate that? The Bureau of Labor Statistics says otherwise.
And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.

Also, how far down is the average person's income compared to cost of living? Inflation is killing our income, and people aren't buying things like they used to. This economy is clearly going even farther downhill because nobody's able to spend money on extras - they're too busy buying petroleum and food and necessities. You can't deny that.

Rising Cost of Living:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-14/u-dot-s-dot-consumer-price-index-rose-in-august-most-since-2009

http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14137554-were-spending-more-but-making-about-the-same?lite

Do you have anything to disagree with that?
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old October 15th, 2012 (10:41 PM).
Ivysaur's Avatar
Ivysaur Ivysaur is offline
You found a heart!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,606
Send a message via Skype™ to Ivysaur
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.
Uhh... I think it works the other way. I mean, a respected non-partisan office that has never been proven wrong (it's true that they update their numbers once they have definite info, but they do it themselves, and sometimes for better, not always for worse, so you can't find a pattern) doesn't need to prove they are telling the truth, because general consensus says that what they say IS the truth. If you want to argue they are lying this time, go ahead, but you are the one who needs to show the proof.
__________________
Oh, we've made a mistake
We've lost our minds
We've lost our memory
Oh, what's it gonna take?
There's always something else
So occupy yourself



Yes kids, once upon a time I was an admin
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old October 16th, 2012 (6:00 AM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
The unemployment rate is only down because so many people quit looking and therefore are not a part of the work force. That means the economy is improving? News to me!
There will be a revision to the unemployment rate in December. There always is one a few months later. Will it be up or down is unknown.

And, while what you say is true, it has also always been the standard. That is how it was calculated is the past. Should we discredit all the previous reported rates from past administrations because it doesn't include people who quit looking for work? Same standard for all, sorry.

Regardless. What the CEO dude is saying is "true" (if you have increased costs, you seek to cut them. That usually means layoffs). I just don't think it is appropriate - in both what he assumes will happen with a second Obama term or in his professional conduct (why would you send this message?)

The part that gets me though is: "If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans"

If the company is taxed, okay I get that. But if he is taxed? If his personal income is tax, as opposed to his company's, why the hell would he lay people off? It is a bit like a hostage situation
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old October 16th, 2012 (6:18 AM).
Oryx's Avatar
Oryx Oryx is offline
CoquettishCat
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 13,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.

Also, how far down is the average person's income compared to cost of living? Inflation is killing our income, and people aren't buying things like they used to. This economy is clearly going even farther downhill because nobody's able to spend money on extras - they're too busy buying petroleum and food and necessities. You can't deny that.

Rising Cost of Living:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-14/u-dot-s-dot-consumer-price-index-rose-in-august-most-since-2009

http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/28/14137554-were-spending-more-but-making-about-the-same?lite

Do you have anything to disagree with that?
1. It's impossible to prove something isn't fake. You can try to prove it is fake though!

2. What does inflation and the cost of living have anything to do with a man that has so much extra money he made himself his own Versailles clone? He is well above inflation and the average cost of living.
__________________


Theme * Pair * VM * PM

Not all men...

Are all men stupid?

That's right.

Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old October 16th, 2012 (8:06 AM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
And those stats can't be rigged to hide the truth? Show me your proof that your stats aren't fake.


Do you have anything to disagree with that?

Come back to reality please and grab an economics textbook while you're at it. Obviously since you don't agree, the nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics is clearly fabricating their results based on months of findings.

BLS website

September 2012 jobs report

Unemployment trend since 1/09 through 10/12



Here's some hard facts for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls.
Here's some actual numbers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-12-1981
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 5, 2012

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * [email protected] * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * [email protected] * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * [email protected]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- SEPTEMBER 2012


The unemployment rate decreased to 7.8 percent in September, and total nonfarm
payroll employment rose by 114,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Employment increased in health care and in transportation and warehousing
but changed little in most other major industries.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 7.8 percent in September.
For the first 8 months of the year, the rate held within a narrow range of 8.1
and 8.3 percent. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by
456,000 in September. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent),
adult women (7.0 percent), and whites (7.0 percent) declined over the month.
The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and
Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed. The jobless rate for Asians, at
4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), fell over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)

In September, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
decreased by 468,000 to 6.5 million. (See table A-11.)

The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks declined by 302,000 over
the month to 2.5 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for
27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1
percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little
change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to
58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in
the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor
force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force
participation rate was little changed at 63.6 percent. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August
to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because
their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time
job. (See table A-8.)

In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were
available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work
in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 802,000 discouraged workers in
September, a decline of 235,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking
for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in September had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such
as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Employment by field + wage increases and July/August revised numbers

Quote:
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 114,000 in September. In 2012,
employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average
monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. In September, employment rose in health care
and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.)

Health care added 44,000 jobs in September. Job gains continued in ambulatory
health care services (+30,000) and hospitals (+8,000). Over the past year,
employment in health care has risen by 295,000.

In September, employment increased by 17,000 in transportation and warehousing.
Within the industry, there were job gains in transit and ground passenger
transportation (+9,000) and in warehousing and storage (+4,000).

Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).

Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has been unchanged since April. In September, job losses occurred
in computer and electronic products (-6,000) and in printing and related
activities (-3,000).

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, construction,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, professional and business services,
leisure and hospitality, and government, showed little change over the month.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in September. The manufacturing workweek edged up by
0.1 hour to 40.6 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged at 3.2 hours.
The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private
nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 7 cents to $23.58. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. In September, average hourly earnings of
private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 5 cents
to $19.81. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)


The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
+141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to
+142,000.


Quote:
Also, how far down is the average person's income compared to cost of living? Inflation is killing our income, and people aren't buying things like they used to. This economy is clearly going even farther downhill because nobody's able to spend money on extras - they're too busy buying petroleum and food and necessities. You can't deny that.
The economies overall health isn't measured by just the cost of living or average income, or just inflation. You neglected to mention the record profits in the private sector (Forget Exxon Mobil's 11 billion profit?) or the strong stock numbers from the DOW and Nasdaq which have continually closed higher since Obama took office. Shows the reality of the income inequality here in the States. Show me a national figure from a reputable poll/source that explicitly states that most middle class people can't "buy extras" because they can only afford necessities. It doesn't exist. I could see if that was true in the lower tax bracket, but not for the average middle class family. That also varies from place to place. Not every state has it as bad as Wisconsin. The economy is far from being as strong as it was pre-2006, but it has slowly and steadily improved since 2009. We were on the edge of an economic abyss, losing 800,000 jobs a month. We are not there now. Therefore, the economy has improved. Deny if you wish.

Now I don't know about Wisconsin, I don't live there. Your recovery (in comparison with the other 49 states) has been pretty bad and painfully slow. You need only to look at your Governor & your collective bargaining debacle and your House of Reps for who to blame. There's a reason why even with Ryan as the V.P nominee, Romney's behind and/or tied with the President there, even after all that.
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old October 16th, 2012 (8:12 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,370
Coming this fall, from the people who brought you voter fraud, birtherism, and obstructionism: Intimidation 2012.

Sometimes I can't believe that such stuff happens and people get away with it.
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old October 16th, 2012 (8:47 AM).
LividZephyr LividZephyr is offline
Oxymoron, not a moron, thanks
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Send a message via AIM to LividZephyr Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to LividZephyr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Now I don't know about Wisconsin, I don't live there. Your recovery (in comparison with the other 49 states) has been pretty bad and painfully slow. You need only to look at your Governor & your collective bargaining debacle and your House of Reps for who to blame. There's a reason why even with Ryan as the V.P nominee, Romney's behind and/or tied with the President there, even after all that.
I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with. You're blaming the governor for everything when it was the unions who chose to tear the state apart and blame him for it, when they prevented him from being able to do his job since they couldn't wait for the four years to be up. That's ALL Democrats do these days - blame, blame, blame. And that includes you.

Guess what? Get a dose of reality. NO politician is perfect. We can't ask for a godly president because no such man exists. And Obama's strategy is incredibly flawed, and it's only getting better because the Republicans in Congress are stopping him from throwing money everywhere like he was. BOTH parties are bad in various ways, and they need each other to disagree with in order to ensure this country isn't destroyed. Thanks to Obama's first two years, though, it's probably going to be.

That's all I have to say.
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old October 16th, 2012 (9:41 AM).
Livewire's Avatar
Livewire Livewire is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunnyshore City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 14,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with. You're blaming the governor for everything when it was the unions who chose to tear the state apart and blame him for it, when they prevented him from being able to do his job since they couldn't wait for the four years to be up. That's ALL Democrats do these days - blame, blame, blame. And that includes you.

Guess what? Get a dose of reality. NO politician is perfect. We can't ask for a godly president because no such man exists. And Obama's strategy is incredibly flawed, and it's only getting better because the Republicans in Congress are stopping him from throwing money everywhere like he was. BOTH parties are bad in various ways, and they need each other to disagree with in order to ensure this country isn't destroyed. Thanks to Obama's first two years, though, it's probably going to be.

That's all I have to say.
lol

You can ignore the numbers if you want. Doesn't change their veracity.
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old October 16th, 2012 (11:01 AM).
Ivysaur's Avatar
Ivysaur Ivysaur is offline
You found a heart!
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Madrid
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,606
Send a message via Skype™ to Ivysaur
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with.
No you haven't.

Unless everyone who doesn't blindly agree with your accusations of a very reputed non-partisan agency making up numbers out of the blue to favour Obama is a close-minded Democrat who is not worth your time.

Then I'm sure you won't find many people to debate with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
Guess what? Get a dose of reality. NO politician is perfect. We can't ask for a godly president because no such man exists. And Obama's strategy is incredibly flawed, and it's only getting better because the Republicans in Congress are stopping him from throwing money everywhere like he was. BOTH parties are bad in various ways, and they need each other to disagree with in order to ensure this country isn't destroyed. Thanks to Obama's first two years, though, it's probably going to be.

That's all I have to say.
Don't worry, in two months, Bush's tax cuts for billionaires will end. That will give something close to 2-3 trillon dollars in restored revenue. If the cuts to middle-income groups are also removed, it will be up to 5 trillion, but I would advise against that in such a weak economical moment. But I'm sure that the Government will be able to pay for stuff with that extra $2-3 trillion available.

It's pretty fun that you blame the Democrats for "fixing stuff by throwing money at it" when the US deficit sky-rocketed with a Republican in the White House from a surplus when Clinton was in. Have you read Romney's fiscal plan? It's pretty fun.

Also I love how your message tries to include a not-too-successfully hidden subliminal "both parties are equally as bad, but your party is more equally bad than mine" idea.
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old October 16th, 2012 (12:13 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,383
Just for the hell of it, decided to see if any more ceo's/richies are threatening the same thing.

And I did.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/14/1009651/ceo-fire-employees-obama/

http://rt.com/usa/news/koch-brothers-obama-vote-501/
Reply With Quote
  #22    
Old October 16th, 2012 (2:04 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by LividZephyr View Post
I seem to have proven my point that you're a closed-minded Democrat who is not worth debating with. You're blaming the governor for everything when it was the unions who chose to tear the state apart and blame him for it, when they prevented him from being able to do his job since they couldn't wait for the four years to be up. That's ALL Democrats do these days - blame, blame, blame. And that includes you.
In situations like that I think there is enough blame to go around.

A contract is a contract. They bargained in good faith. Maybe they asked for too much, but at the same time their employer agreed. As a union, their role is to get the most bang for their buck - right or wrong. Similarly, those bargaining with the union on behalf of the government are supposed to do the same - get the most bang for our buck. They agreed to what they agreed to.

Both are at fault (I say vaguely, not necessarily about Wisconsin but about recent government-union issues in general. So... anything more tailored to Wisconsin and whether it was right or not for the union to concede beforehand I'm not touching)
Reply With Quote
  #23    
Old October 16th, 2012 (3:18 PM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,491
Nice biased titled!

You mean he said that he might be forced layoff workers because of Obama's intent to raise his taxes. Businesses will need to compensate for these higher taxes but cutting costs elsewhere. Unfortunately, letting workers go can be a consequence of Obama's misguided attempt to raise taxes on America's job creators.
Reply With Quote
  #24    
Old October 16th, 2012 (3:23 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
Nice biased titled!

You mean he said that he might be forced layoff workers because of Obama's intent to raise his taxes. Businesses will need to compensate for these higher taxes but cutting costs elsewhere. Unfortunately, letting workers go can be a consequence of Obama's misguided attempt to raise taxes on America's job creators.
Answer this for me. How will he or his company be harmed if he has a increased tax rate? He will still be a billionaire, with more money then he will ever need in his life. If anything, the only harm will happen when he reduces to work force.

Here is the thing. We were starting to lose jobs when Bush was president. This was before any new taxes were proposed.

If low taxes truly created more jobs, then why were we losing jobs when Bush was in charge?
Reply With Quote
  #25    
Old October 16th, 2012 (3:26 PM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
I was waiting for you to post here. I actually said it to myself, I can't wait for Freakylocz14 to post in this thread.

Answer this for me. How will he or his company be harmed if he has a increased tax rate? He will still be a billionaire, with more money then he will ever need in his life. If anything, the only harm will happen when he reduces to work force.
He will be harmed because he will have less take-home pay, and him having to reduce his workforce is even more proof of the collateral damage that liberal policies cause. We need to permanently extend ALL of the Bus tax cuts, or the already bad unemployment problem will only get worse.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:58 AM.