Challenger, Gray and Christmas show layoffs at a 16 month high in their latest layoff tracker report. They also noted this is the third monthly increase.
A sudden and unexpected burst in private-sector downsizing pushed the number of announced job cuts to a 16-month high of 66,414 in July.
The 66,414 job cuts last month were up 60 percent from the previous month, when employers announced plans to shed 41,432 workers. The July figure was 59 percent higher than the 41,676 layoffs recorded in July 2010. It was the largest monthly total since March 2010, when 67,611 job cuts were announced by the nation’s employers.
Announced hiring plans are also at extreme lows, with July having only 10,706. Cisco system is a large part of the layoffs, 6,500 announced, yet other financial sites have the layoffs over 10,000. The thing is Cisco is not just laying off people, they offshore outsource to India and China routinely.
Borders bankruptcy and resulting 10,700 jobs cuts is part of the reason for the surge, but clearly companies are doing slash and burn disposable worker mantra, as usual, the minute the economy looks weak.
The 13,493 July layoffs from the pharmaceutical industry, with Merck being 13,000 of them, is no shocker, they have been moving advanced R&D to China and India since 2006.
Last year Challenger, Gray and Christmas tallied 529,973 layoffs. 2011 is already up to 312,220.
How Bad Before Something is Done?
What is it going to take for something to get done about jobs?
I am almost afraid to know.
A "new" recession? Of course most Americans think we've never gotten out of the one that started in December 2007.
We lurch from misery increasing to misery stagnating. Are we going back to increasing misery again?
the spin is in, every corporate lobbyist agenda being touted
as "jobs". We need to do some analysis and write up post about what kind of policies, legislation actually would create jobs because the spin is in.
I'm reading some plant piece on HuffPo right at this moment which ignored the entire first to file agenda of "patent reform" and blasts Nancy Pelosi for opposing it.
That's a complete B.S. claim that's a "job creator" too. I have to read this more, patent law is beyond complex, but I already wrote a piece saying it was a corporate agenda love fest and didn't know Pelosi opposed the bill. First to file vs. first to invent is a no-brainer though, that's very anti individual inventor, entrepreneurship.
So, in other words, we have to go through, by 1st principles, some policy proposals and analyze, you honest cannot take the word of any news outlet, pundit without looking at the data.
But this government is beyond disgusting and are trying to turn basic economics upon it's head to get steal the phrase "jobs" and attach it to whatever corporate lobbyist agenda is desired next.
Disgusting, literally running the country into the ground.
How Norquist Stops us Mining the Mother Lode of Job Creators
Corporate America has at least $2Trillion stashed in foreign banks, mostly European. All could be repatriated if a Tax Holiday were created. But wait, that money is in part the result of the Foreign Tax Credit, almost $1Trillion in the last 10 years. If you grant the Tax Holiday, the money will leave almost immediately through the Carry Trade, right offshore again.
Get rid of the Foreign Tax Credit and it is much more expensive to move the money offshore without paying U.S and foreign tax. But Norquist has the Repubs pledging no new taxes.
When repatriated,if Corporate American left the $2Trillion in CDs or TBills in domestic finacial instututions, the Fed could do a legitimate QEIII or directly purchases of debt, mortgages etc
.
We should assume the repatriated foreign funds would be invested. I can't see how this would not help the domestic economy.
If reason prevailed, the tax benefit of the Repatriation would dwarf the extra tax of the Foreign Tax Credit. Norquist does not do reason or offsets.
Burton Leed
not sure what u r saying but tax holiday
is bogus, it allows those offshore outsourcing profits to be brought back, tax free, distributed to investors through Wall Street. Has nothing to do with jobs, growing the economy or any benefit to the U.S.
What Leed seems to be saying ...
... is that legislation to promote repatriation of funds held overseas would be a plus for jobs if and only if 'Foreign Tax Credit' and 'Carry Trade' were eliminated first.
Also, Leed is saying (I think) that Norquist's 'no new taxes' is simplistic and stupid because the point is to lower the overall tax burden for citizens, which can best be done by eliminating particular loopholes favoring foreign interests (interpreted by Norquist and Boehner as 'new taxes').
These are complicated matters, to say the least. However, you could not do better than the Foreign Tax Credit if your purpose is to study and expose the contradictions of what I call the 'WTO' world system and how the U.S. seems to be self-destructing within that system.
Carry Trade is another issue -- concerning, I believe, how the IRS allows you to treat your trading profits and losses. This may be related to Foreign Tax Credit because it seems to be mostly of interest to currency market players, that being an essentially international issue.
Of course, MNCs (and MNIs or 'multi-national individuals') can work both sides of the street as their spreadsheets under various assumptions indicate.
It's interesting to consider that political attacks on the IRS may, to some extent, be motivated by a desire to restrain aggressive enforcement especially regarding international players in currency markets (and, of course, money laundering).
carry trade + tax incentives to offshore outsource
The carry trade refers to the difference between exchange rates and implies one can borrow money at effective 0% interest rates and dump it in another country and make money on it, simply because of that nation's interest rates.
I went through the nitty gritty on the tax code on these incentives to offshore outsource a couple of years ago.
deal about tax break to offshore outsource and tax incentives to offshore outsource.
I have to read my own post overviews to recall how it all works, obviously a topic to be revisited.
What did happen to IRC reform in 2009?
Proposals discussed in Robert Oak's blog 'What's the Deal On That Little Tax Break to Offshore Outsource your Job?' -- proposals from Geithner and the Obama administration -- were actually progressive for the most part, although probably an attempt to co-opt more progressive thinking from getting a start in the House. Robert Oak blogs reflect that fact.
The problem is that proposals (outlined in original 2009 Oak blog) do not equate to legislation! Also, cynical headlines do not accommodate dissemination of news. Oak blog later in 2009, 'Tax incentives to offshore outsource your job are great! So says the Obama administration' records that the Obama administration officially abandoned IRC reforms in October after supporting them back in May, although also promising to revisit the issues in 2010. Oak blog headlines, although not the text, fail to distinguish between the proposals in Congress in March/April/May and the abandonment of those proposals in October, 2010. More focus on congress and less on the White House, IMHO, would have been great, if published in time to make any difference. To record the failure of IRC reform, and summarily blame it on Obama, is a waste of energy in the absence of vigorous reporting throughout the spring and summer of 2010 directed against members of Congress responsible for bills dying in the House Ways and Means Committee.
Oak, in the October post, citing to HuffPost's Arthur Delaney, clearly shows that the original start in the House in the spring of 2009 was positive and tended toward progressive reform of infamous IRC loopholes. (Perhaps, Oak disrespects HuffPost for good reason, but I cannot believe that extends to disrespect of Delaney, whose specialty is the unemployment crisis and who is hardly an apologist for the corporatist agenda!
Here's EP's quote of Delaney (EP, October, 2009):
Have there been any reforms of IRC by either the 111th or 112th Congress?
Of course, there was the first-time homebuyer tax credit, essentially an emergency provision. Also, there was the payroll tax holiday. And, there was some doodling about handling of unemployment income. All emergency measures, no longer in effect.
111th Congress. Other than emergency legislation, the only amendment of IRC of 1986 that I can find enacted by the 111th Congress is PL 111-196, (124 STAT. 1353), which is a brief thing titled and concerning ‘‘Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010", which can also be considered emergency in nature.
HR 135 -- which, I believe, was an attempt to reform the notorious limited partnership system of tax evasion (or avoidance) -- died in committee in the 111th, as did (I believe) HR 1613 ("Made in America Act of 2009"). Please correct me if I am inaccurate here.
The one positive thing that happened in the 111th was actually negative in nature, namely, preventing the elimination of the $600 threshold for 1099s by small businesses. Whew! That was a close call! I'll give the Republican devils their due on that one!
112th Congress. What? -- reform of loopholes favoring MNCs and MNIs?
Yeah, right
Very funny
That's what the 'Tea Party' is all about
like all good ideas, they die in committee, killed by lobbyists
Corporations fight this tooth and nail. They literally have software algorithms on how to profit from moving capital, funds and jobs around the globe.
But pretty much any common sense policy having to do with labor and economics goes to committee to die. If it's managed to be voted out of committee, they will kill it with amendments.
If it actually passes, they will appoint 6 corrupt as hell conferees and rewrite a bill to nothing after it has passed both houses.
All very disgusting and why the entire globe is now in an uproar. While everyone is blasting S&P at the moment, who can argue with their assessment our government is so insane and corrupt, they are literally destroying the U.S.A.
i think u have to look back
i think u have to look back to the last great depression... things are very bad at present but people have tremendous capacity to endure great hardship ...
we're getting there but not at the misery level of the '30's depression when FDR was elected and his first 100 days made history. Perhaps his first 100 days was so good that it has mitigated to some extent the present day depression. Thereby making change to our current political environment that much more difficult.