Maybe, um, this is why unemployment is so high?
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Maybe, um, this is why unemployment is so high?
Companies are squeezing greater profits out of their employees, even as layoffs rise and the outlook for hiring and raises remains mixed, a recent study has found.
Profits per employee have gone up for the second year in a row, according to a study by the financial analysis company Sageworks, suggesting that companies continue to get more out of their employees as they slash their payrolls in an effort to get leaner. The findings also suggest that profits have been rising despite the lack of a corresponding increase in wages.
The private companies surveyed by Sageworks reported that their profits per employee climbed to $15,278.72 in 2011 from $12,488.02 in 2010, a rise of about 22 percent for the year. The figures for 2010, in turn, represented an increase of about 24 percent from the 2009 profits per employee, which were $10,045.56.
Oh, heck....who am I kidding? It's all Obama's fault.
In a just-barely-related matter, are you really annoyed by bloggers like me who always write things like "um" and "you know" in their posts? The New York Times tells me it's all the fault of late novelist David Foster Wallace.
Comments (89)
Oh no, lifecoach, its another quote by Wynn, over and over again. Wait two weeks, then post the one quote again! Philly.thompson837, you care totally and completely clueless. Is is another fine example of someone living in a delusional anti-reality. To the extent that the administration can ‘make it possible to get money for expansion’, they enacted tax cuts as part of the ARRA, cut the payroll tax (SS tax), and handed out tax credits for businesses hiring, and investing in certain types of capital. They also allowed money to be lent through Treasury facilities, did nothing to impede the QE and other facilities created to increase liquidity, as they are not empowered to (Congress is), and of course allowed money to be appropriated and spent directly in the form of facilities enabling companies to purchase durable equipment used in the process of working on projects funded by ARRA. Like I’ve said – in order to be inculcated in Republicanism and Conservatism these days one must be delusional.— Murrayman
Comment removed.- well said.— Miss M.
- Comment removed.
- The true answer is unknown, lifecoaches, but I've not ever been the one to make a decision to hire someone based on forecasts. On the other hand I've directly contributed revenue to a company and grew business lines. I've also hired directly many a worker who may have otherwise been sitting on the sideline to perform any number of tasks - my roof being the latest one. Be sure that a goodly amount of money used to hire these people came from --- oh heavens! -- tax credits for new homeowners provided by the wicked government. So my spending became someone else's income. But you're right, lifecoach, only people who run companies should be making macroeconomic policy decisions -- makes plenty of sense. For every quote you find about the 'uncertainty' I'll find one from someone hailing legislation allowing them to expand due to better (demand) prospects.— Murrayman
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- And of course you never followed up on that lazy piece of journalism by Knoller. It has been thoroughly debunked by the left AND the right.
— Les Ismore - philly thompson, your right on the money! Will, your such a blind, ignorant lib.The companies CAN'T hire or produce enough output due to high corporate taxes, over-regulated for the wrong industries, etc... due to your hero's economic policies in DC. According to the CBO, the unemployment growth rate is going to get much worse. Of course, moron mysteriously thinks that spending more than what we get in output will cure our economy's ills and magically, there will be a rise in employment. You should have been fired a long time ago, your so incompetent!— mulford71
- mulford71 -- another example of delusion in action. "It expects joblessness to fall to 8.9 percent in this year's fourth quarter, and to 8.5 percent by the end of 2012. But the CBO sees unemployment remaining above 8% until 2014." Sooooo, the unemployment growth rate is going to get worse, yet according to this source, it will decrease. What does 'growth' mean? "If money is on hand, nobody is spending it, that tells me they fear Obama's policies" -- that's becasue you're an idiot and make judgments based on partisanship. "Unemployment is through the roof" -- just look at a chart showing job month over month job growth and you'll clearly see this is preposterous. Granted, job growth is anemic, but this statement by BLS is ludicrous. Truth is, beside the comments from a CEO here and there, is the S&P 500 earnings growth has been upward since 09. Of course the rate growth is due to general recovery, aside from Obama policies. But make no mistake, the market thinks that profits are rolling, evident by the (until recently) bull market we have been in (and most likely missed by lifecoaches).— Murrayman
- Just curious - so I haven't hired nearly as many people as Steve Wynn. True. So what's the point? Therefore, Wynn is pre-eminent and must never be questioned? How about if I find a rebuttal to Wynn's nonsense? Do I need to check the job record of that person first? I guess all economists are not able to subscribe certain policies because they haven't owned businesses?— Murrayman
- Comment removed.
- Which of course begs the question where yours comes from. — evolutionary
- ===}}} The companies CAN'T hire or produce enough output due to high corporate taxes, over-regulated for the wrong industries, etc... due to your hero's economic policies in DC. {{{===
The logic behind this statement is simply astounding.
How do corporate tax rates now compare to the rates during periods of historic growth? How do they compare to rates during his predecessor? How do they compare to the rates of his predecessor's predecessor?
How does "regulation for the wrong industries" compare now to periods of historic growth? To regulation under his predecessor? To regulation under his predecessor's predecessor?
With that display of logic, mully, I feel compelled to ask you - you wouldn't happen to vote Republican, would you?— Talking point sleuth
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: