(07-07-2011 09:05 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 01:12 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The housing bubble combined with sub prime lending are the biggest reasons for the bad economy. And you and I would probably agree that government programs to support home ownership for low income was very bad in hindsight.

I'm capable of accepting reality.

Deficit spending was a result of the bad economy and the bush tax cuts. If deficit spending was the the reason then you would be agreeing with me that the Bush tax cuts were bad! I don't believe, and most economists don't believe, that deficit spending caused the bad economy. There are no facts to back that up. Now, I'm not suggesting that deficits are good, either.

Also, your argument rests on the belief that ALL government spending is bad minus defense and national security. That quite a pie in the sky argument that ignores reality.

You are not even close.

he's not close on what? the housing bubble? that is THE main cause of the $hitty economy!

(07-07-2011 10:09 PM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 09:05 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 01:12 PM)niuguy Wrote:  The housing bubble combined with sub prime lending are the biggest reasons for the bad economy. And you and I would probably agree that government programs to support home ownership for low income was very bad in hindsight.

I'm capable of accepting reality.

Deficit spending was a result of the bad economy and the bush tax cuts. If deficit spending was the the reason then you would be agreeing with me that the Bush tax cuts were bad! I don't believe, and most economists don't believe, that deficit spending caused the bad economy. There are no facts to back that up. Now, I'm not suggesting that deficits are good, either.

Also, your argument rests on the belief that ALL government spending is bad minus defense and national security. That quite a pie in the sky argument that ignores reality.

You are not even close.

he's not close on what? the housing bubble? that is THE main cause of the $hitty economy!

There should be more depth than "housing bubble", "sub prime", "deficit spending" to explain the fiasco we are living. Those catch phrases are just after effects of the true cause as to why we are the position we are in today.

(07-07-2011 11:07 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  There should be more depth than "housing bubble", "sub prime", "deficit spending" to explain the fiasco we are living. Those catch phrases are just after effects of the true cause as to why we are the position we are in today.

I confess I speak as a laymen. I'm sure an economist could use better words and more precise statistics. I don't think, as an observer, I'm too far off the mark though.

(07-08-2011 12:10 AM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-07-2011 11:07 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  There should be more depth than "housing bubble", "sub prime", "deficit spending" to explain the fiasco we are living. Those catch phrases are just after effects of the true cause as to why we are the position we are in today.

I confess I speak as a laymen. I'm sure an economist could use better words and more precise statistics. I don't think, as an observer, I'm too far off the mark though.

Actually, 9/11 was the catalyst. When people retracted the spending after this attack it started the ball rolling. The housing crash was put in motion. Many poeple were allowed to buy homes that couldn't afford them thinking they would make 10% a year. They got over extended and there goes housing values. People started losing jobs, elected officials paniced and started trhowing good money after bad. No plan was developed and we still don't have a plan. Now debt is up 3.2 trillion and we have no jog growth but more interest on money spent. now we are in a real pickle and no true leaders to get us out, we have politicians

(07-06-2011 12:37 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 12:30 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(07-06-2011 12:13 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 01:57 PM)klake87 Wrote:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...76014.html

That is how much we spent on each job saved by the $666 billion dollar stimulus. This year, many of those jobs will disappear because there is no more stimulus to continue them. Another poor way our government spends our money.

I really don't care if we pay people $278k to dig a hole and fill it back in again. If that's $278k that stayed active in the economy, and out of Daddy Warbucks' swiss bank account, I say mission accomplished.

The problem is that money didn't come from their employer, it came from China and the other nations who loan us money.

We borrowed the money, now we owe it with zero benefit. government jobs will be cut. We need to get businesses to start creating jobs not saving jobs in government that are useless. To reduce the deficit, we need manufacturing and professional jobs to be created. Then they will pay taxes. The Dems way is to increas taxes on those working and give a longer free ride to those not. CREATE private sector jobs by getting out of the way of the private sector. I understand Coils, you hate rich people. That is ok but they are the ones creating real jobs.

Ok Klake. Here is the situation. The hope was to hold off the layoffs until the economy turned around then if there were cuts made, they would be fewer and the economy could absorb them. Unfortunately, businesses are sitting on their money and not hiring and the rest of the stimulus(your tax cut) didn't stimulate much because it was the wrong approach(combination of tax cuts, infrastructure and other things(pork). It should have been geard toward mostly toward infrastructure, which is crumbling and needs to be fixed/replaced anyway so it would have been a wise use of money. Hope you enjoyed your tax cut(I actually did and it DID make a big difference for me).

(07-08-2011 10:46 AM)RobertN Wrote:  It should have been geard toward mostly toward infrastructure, which is crumbling and needs to be fixed/replaced anyway so it would have been a wise use of money.

I've said the same thing. The stimulus needed to be 3 times a big and it needed to all go toward infrastructure. Cutting waste, fraud, and abuse out of the military budget wouldn't hurt either.

I really try and stay away from the political stuff but I would like to comment on manufacturing jobs as it keeps coming up.

I have worked in a manufacturing/maintenance/welding shop that for the past 6 years (other than 2009) has been constantly hiring. Most of the machinists make over $60k, the really good ones make over $100k and that is without any college degree.

The problem that I see is that most of the USA born experienced (30+) work force does not have the necessary skills needed to be hired as anything other than an entry level helper which is not much money. On top of that there is very little interest from the younger (under 30) incoming work force in working in the shop as it seems they do not want to get their hands dirty or occasionally for the perceived environmental negative impact.

If we get some one that has the necessary skills the next problem that usually comes up are the hours that are needed to be put in. With the seasonal work we do there is a 9 month period where they can be expected to put in 72 hours per week and are requested to work 80+. Granted this is partially because we have a shortage of people but we turned away a good chunk of work this past spring because we were overloaded.

An associates degree is really all that is needed to work on the floor to make some really good money after you prove yourself, but for CEET students that are willing spend several years to learn hands on machining/manufacturing/welding or have that experience are a prime target within these types of industry. After 10 years most are making over $125k and the brightest ones are making over $250k.

(07-08-2011 02:37 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  I really try and stay away from the political stuff but I would like to comment on manufacturing jobs as it keeps coming up.

I have worked in a manufacturing/maintenance/welding shop that for the past 6 years (other than 2009) has been constantly hiring. Most of the machinists make over $60k, the really good ones make over $100k and that is without any college degree.

The problem that I see is that most of the USA born experienced (30+) work force does not have the necessary skills needed to be hired as anything other than an entry level helper which is not much money. On top of that there is very little interest from the younger (under 30) incoming work force in working in the shop as it seems they do not want to get their hands dirty or occasionally for the perceived environmental negative impact.

If we get some one that has the necessary skills the next problem that usually comes up are the hours that are needed to be put in. With the seasonal work we do there is a 9 month period where they can be expected to put in 72 hours per week and are requested to work 80+. Granted this is partially because we have a shortage of people but we turned away a good chunk of work this past spring because we were overloaded.

An associates degree is really all that is needed to work on the floor to make some really good money after you prove yourself, but for CEET students that are willing spend several years to learn hands on machining/manufacturing/welding or have that experience are a prime target within these types of industry. After 10 years most are making over $125k and the brightest ones are making over $250k.

I actually heard about this in the news. It's quite the dilemma for young people. Get highly trained in an industry that might not be around in 10 or 15 years...even if that industry needs you right now? If american's aren't going to get the training, import it. Better than exporting the job. Obviously, its not the ideal choice.

HJ, is that what your company has been forced to do? Go for non-american born talent?

Biggest problem for me is that my higher ups are not retiring/moving up. That and the large amount of talented techs that are willing to do freelance work is killing me haha. If some of those could move to HuskieJohn's industry I would be raking in the high paying gigs.

(07-08-2011 02:37 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  I really try and stay away from the political stuff but I would like to comment on manufacturing jobs as it keeps coming up.

I have worked in a manufacturing/maintenance/welding shop that for the past 6 years (other than 2009) has been constantly hiring. Most of the machinists make over $60k, the really good ones make over $100k and that is without any college degree.

The problem that I see is that most of the USA born experienced (30+) work force does not have the necessary skills needed to be hired as anything other than an entry level helper which is not much money. On top of that there is very little interest from the younger (under 30) incoming work force in working in the shop as it seems they do not want to get their hands dirty or occasionally for the perceived environmental negative impact.

If we get some one that has the necessary skills the next problem that usually comes up are the hours that are needed to be put in. With the seasonal work we do there is a 9 month period where they can be expected to put in 72 hours per week and are requested to work 80+. Granted this is partially because we have a shortage of people but we turned away a good chunk of work this past spring because we were overloaded.

An associates degree is really all that is needed to work on the floor to make some really good money after you prove yourself, but for CEET students that are willing spend several years to learn hands on machining/manufacturing/welding or have that experience are a prime target within these types of industry. After 10 years most are making over $125k and the brightest ones are making over $250k.

really insightful. thanks for the input!

(07-08-2011 04:36 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Biggest problem for me is that my higher ups are not retiring/moving up. That and the large amount of talented techs that are willing to do freelance work is killing me haha. If some of those could move to HuskieJohn's industry I would be raking in the high paying gigs.

I see the problem of older workers working longer as a long term problem in many fields. There are a lot of societal benefits for getting those in their 60s and 70s to retire - specifically it creates promotion potential for those in their 30s and 40s, but if people retire say at 72 instead of 65 that is a lot longer wait for promotions for a lot of younger people.

(07-10-2011 10:37 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(07-08-2011 04:36 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Biggest problem for me is that my higher ups are not retiring/moving up. That and the large amount of talented techs that are willing to do freelance work is killing me haha. If some of those could move to HuskieJohn's industry I would be raking in the high paying gigs.

I see the problem of older workers working longer as a long term problem in many fields. There are a lot of societal benefits for getting those in their 60s and 70s to retire - specifically it creates promotion potential for those in their 30s and 40s, but if people retire say at 72 instead of 65 that is a lot longer wait for promotions for a lot of younger people.

i guess "FWIW", even us youngers shold expect to work until 72 instead of say 65. so waiting for that big promotion should not, in theory, lessen the income potential because the window of earning the so called big bucks stays the same in terms of time amount. big stretch here though

(07-10-2011 11:01 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(07-10-2011 10:37 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(07-08-2011 04:36 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Biggest problem for me is that my higher ups are not retiring/moving up. That and the large amount of talented techs that are willing to do freelance work is killing me haha. If some of those could move to HuskieJohn's industry I would be raking in the high paying gigs.

I see the problem of older workers working longer as a long term problem in many fields. There are a lot of societal benefits for getting those in their 60s and 70s to retire - specifically it creates promotion potential for those in their 30s and 40s, but if people retire say at 72 instead of 65 that is a lot longer wait for promotions for a lot of younger people.

i guess "FWIW", even us youngers shold expect to work until 72 instead of say 65. so waiting for that big promotion should not, in theory, lessen the income potential because the window of earning the so called big bucks stays the same in terms of time amount. big stretch here though

The problem is that most people have their biggest expenses (i.e., paying for their children's college) in their 40s and early 50s, so if you don't get the big promo until your mid-50s that's going to make it increasingly harder for people to pay for college.

(07-10-2011 11:12 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(07-10-2011 11:01 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(07-10-2011 10:37 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  

(07-08-2011 04:36 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Biggest problem for me is that my higher ups are not retiring/moving up. That and the large amount of talented techs that are willing to do freelance work is killing me haha. If some of those could move to HuskieJohn's industry I would be raking in the high paying gigs.

I see the problem of older workers working longer as a long term problem in many fields. There are a lot of societal benefits for getting those in their 60s and 70s to retire - specifically it creates promotion potential for those in their 30s and 40s, but if people retire say at 72 instead of 65 that is a lot longer wait for promotions for a lot of younger people.

i guess "FWIW", even us youngers shold expect to work until 72 instead of say 65. so waiting for that big promotion should not, in theory, lessen the income potential because the window of earning the so called big bucks stays the same in terms of time amount. big stretch here though

The problem is that most people have their biggest expenses (i.e., paying for their children's college) in their 40s and early 50s, so if you don't get the big promo until your mid-50s that's going to make it increasingly harder for people to pay for college.

definitely don't disagree with you here.

(07-10-2011 11:29 AM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  

(07-10-2011 11:12 AM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  The problem is that most people have their biggest expenses (i.e., paying for their children's college) in their 40s and early 50s, so if you don't get the big promo until your mid-50s that's going to make it increasingly harder for people to pay for college.

definitely don't disagree with you here.

I thought that's why we are sending our kids to NIU :)

(07-07-2011 01:53 PM)niuguy Wrote:  I think healthcare for the uninsured is just as important as anything else.

I am TOTALLY on board with dropping the corporate tax rate pretty dramatically, while repealing the tax cuts. People might move their company overseas but they arnt going to move to their family India to avoid taxes :)

Hey, even Obama said that he could support lowering corporate tax rates. Of course, he said that would include eliminating many loopholes. That needless to say didn't go over too well in the corporate world since it would cost them more than corporate tax rates as they are now. :)

(07-05-2011 01:57 PM)klake87 Wrote:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...76014.html

That is how much we spent on each job saved by the $666 billion dollar stimulus. This year, many of those jobs will disappear because there is no more stimulus to continue them. Another poor way our government spends our money.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/0...aying-off/

(07-10-2011 05:36 PM)niubrad00 Wrote:  

(07-05-2011 01:57 PM)klake87 Wrote:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obam...76014.html

That is how much we spent on each job saved by the $666 billion dollar stimulus. This year, many of those jobs will disappear because there is no more stimulus to continue them. Another poor way our government spends our money.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/0...aying-off/

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

(07-08-2011 02:44 PM)niuguy Wrote:  

(07-08-2011 02:37 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  I really try and stay away from the political stuff but I would like to comment on manufacturing jobs as it keeps coming up.

I have worked in a manufacturing/maintenance/welding shop that for the past 6 years (other than 2009) has been constantly hiring. Most of the machinists make over $60k, the really good ones make over $100k and that is without any college degree.

The problem that I see is that most of the USA born experienced (30+) work force does not have the necessary skills needed to be hired as anything other than an entry level helper which is not much money. On top of that there is very little interest from the younger (under 30) incoming work force in working in the shop as it seems they do not want to get their hands dirty or occasionally for the perceived environmental negative impact.

If we get some one that has the necessary skills the next problem that usually comes up are the hours that are needed to be put in. With the seasonal work we do there is a 9 month period where they can be expected to put in 72 hours per week and are requested to work 80+. Granted this is partially because we have a shortage of people but we turned away a good chunk of work this past spring because we were overloaded.

An associates degree is really all that is needed to work on the floor to make some really good money after you prove yourself, but for CEET students that are willing spend several years to learn hands on machining/manufacturing/welding or have that experience are a prime target within these types of industry. After 10 years most are making over $125k and the brightest ones are making over $250k.

I actually heard about this in the news. It's quite the dilemma for young people. Get highly trained in an industry that might not be around in 10 or 15 years...even if that industry needs you right now? If american's aren't going to get the training, import it. Better than exporting the job. Obviously, its not the ideal choice.

HJ, is that what your company has been forced to do? Go for non-american born talent?

Yes, our main plant shop & office is 90% foreign born but so is the owner.

HOWEVER, the thing is that the industry I work in CAN NOT be shipped overseas. There are many other professions that someone can make a very good living for themselves but they involve getting dirty and also requires you to pay you dues (time & maybe Union).

At this point I would think in 15yrs when my son has graduated from High School that I would rather have him go to a technical school or a college/university with a technical program. In a down economy it is better to be able to make or repair something that is a high priority for people to have done even in hard times.

Interesting, may I ask what industry you are in?