Ok. . . This is terrifying.

[Conan71]

I do know that where I work, in my department, back in 2007 we had a crew of eight.  As of this day, we're down to five, and we're easily doing twice the work that we were doing in 2007.  I know my workload has increased substantially.

Do you feel like you were underworked then or overworked now, or just about right with the current workload?

No right or wrong answer, just curious

[we vs us]

It's sustainable to maintain profit objectives and stay in business.  Those that burn out and quit will be replaced by the pool of 9.5% who aren't working now.  Those who have jobs right now should be expecting to work harder as it's not an ideal climate to be searching for a job right now, so workers will have to take less than their ideal working conditions in some cases.  Truly good management will recognize when it's time to bring in more help to take some stress off the existing employees, if individuals and teams can't meet project or product delivery deadlines.  

I know that sounds cold and callous, but let's assume that orders increase and therefore production increases.  Based on an increase in work flow it's assumed that everyone would still maintain their existing pace and additional people are brought in to cover additional tasks or overflow.  Still no guarantee that the pressure on each individual is lessened.  I'm feeling the over-work burden somewhat right now, but I'm finding it preferable to having no work at all.

By and large I think you're correct, which is what I find so disturbing.  Corporate profits are matching pre-recession levels, but with far lower employment.  Hence the Economist's reference to the decoupling of profit and employment.  Companies now need fewer workers to make the same amount of profit.  While that will have to change at some point (again, per the Economist) when companies want to increase their profit, it indicates that certain levels of employment may not be necessary to guarantee an increase in revenue. Which in turn means that there's a far less compelling reason to treat companies with kid gloves, since the kid gloves don't lead directly to jobs.

[Conan71]

By and large I think you're correct, which is what I find so disturbing.  Corporate profits are matching pre-recession levels, but with far lower employment.  Hence the Economist's reference to the decoupling of profit and employment.  And the death of the trickle down theory.

I don't think it's the death of the trickle down theory, I think what is happening is companies are refusing to hire in advance of increased sales.  Given the shock the economy has gone through in the last two years, the fact that profits are returning and more companies are not closing down is a victory.  Certainly I'd prefer if they were hiring and U/E was back around 5% but there'd be less hope about the future of employment prospects if the companies had disappeared alltogether.

Not many are willing to mortgage the future not knowing when or if sales will increase.  We could hire more pipe-fitters and welders right now for a large contract I might win for my company, but it will make a whole lot more sense once I've got some signatures, a purchase order, and letter of credit in hand.

Individuals and corporations have learned some hard lessons about borrowing against future earnings and profits the last two years by being put into situations they never thought they would see.  I really do think we are seeing a more austere society emerging from the ashes of this collapse.  I hope I'm wrong, but what if we simply have to accept 9.5% as the new going rate of unemployment?

[Gaspar]

USA Today must be reading this thread. . .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-08-11-housing11_cv_N.htm

[Hoss]

Do you feel like you were underworked then or overworked now, or just about right with the current workload?

No right or wrong answer, just curious

I felt a little like I was overworked then, so you can imagine how I feel now...but, I am an SME on a number of things where I work (that's 'subject matter expert') so I can be 'in demand' quite often.  My friends/family say it's 'job security'.  Hogwash.  There is nothing that makes your job secure these days...

[we vs us]

I don't think it's the death of the trickle down theory, I think what is happening is companies are refusing to hire in advance of increased sales.  Given the shock the economy has gone through in the last two years, the fact that profits are returning and more companies are not closing down is a victory.  Certainly I'd prefer if they were hiring and U/E was back around 5% but there'd be less hope about the future of employment prospects if the companies had disappeared alltogether.

Not many are willing to mortgage the future not knowing when or if sales will increase.  We could hire more pipe-fitters and welders right now for a large contract I might win for my company, but it will make a whole lot more sense once I've got some signatures, a purchase order, and letter of credit in hand.

Individuals and corporations have learned some hard lessons about borrowing against future earnings and profits the last two years by being put into situations they never thought they would see.  I really do think we are seeing a more austere society emerging from the ashes of this collapse.  I hope I'm wrong, but what if we simply have to accept 9.5% as the new going rate of unemployment?

Interesting.  In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity.  That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate.   If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.

And it might as well be the death of trickle down.  If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right?  That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general.  I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain." 

If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast. 

[Gaspar]

Interesting.  In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity.  That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate.   If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.

And it might as well be the death of trickle down.  If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right?  That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general.  I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain." 

If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast. 

You sir have a point that forces some examination.
+1

[rwarn17588]

Interesting.  In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity.  That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate.   If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.

And it might as well be the death of trickle down.  If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right?  That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general.  I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain." 

If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast. 

Good post.

I'd say it's the lack of corporations looking out for the public good. They seem to have lost sight that what's for the greater good also is good for America (and long-term business) as well. They've decided to pursue the almighty dollar RIGHT NOW and to hell with everything else, without considering the societal cost.

I've seen what conscience-less companies have done to towns such as Flint, Mich., and East St. Louis, Ill., and it ain't pretty. And this sort of attitude has been creeping into the mainstream for a long time. Not every corporation is doing it, but an awful lot are. Anyone who denies this is wearing blinders.

I don't know if the answer is government intervention as much as it is the American populace shaming these companies, instead of being an apologist for them.

[Conan71]

Interesting.  In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity.  That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate.   If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.

And it might as well be the death of trickle down.  If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right?  That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general.  I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain." 

If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast. 

With the exception of mutually agreed upon numbers in "quality jobs" programs like the state of Oklahoma has, the government cannot mandate how many people a company should employ for a given profit structure.  Otherwise you are slipping ever so close to those dreaded "c" and "s" words.  The government can mandate what minimum wages are for trades on government contracts and projects it contracts out via Davis Bacon.  They can't say how many pipefitters, welders, riveters, concrete finishers, floor sweepers, electrical journeymen, etc. a contractor must use to complete a project.

The profit margin is irrelevant anyhow when you look at staffing levels.  11% profit on $1mm worth of business is a whole lot different than 11% on $4mm.  You can't sustain the same staffing levels at $1mm as you can at $4mm unless you want to run a business into the ground.  As well, with your trickle down notion, tax breaks on $1mm are proportionately less than at $4mm.  Tax breaks are an incentive in a growing economy, but unless sales are rising, why hire more people?  If ambiguity in legislation and executive actions are percieved as road blocks to growth, why would a CEO go on a hiring binge if that's his or her paradigm? 

Capitalist economies and the businesses within them aren't altruistic in nature when it comes to hiring and maintaining staffing levels.  At some point, all jobs could be lost within a company if some of the jobs are not sacrificed.

I'm a far better study of human behavior than I am an economist.  Economic theories don't create jobs except for professors and jobs at the Federal Reserve.    People create jobs for others based on their best projections as to how well sales are doing and will do and how they feel the regulatory environment (including taxation) could affect their business.

[Conan71]

Good post.

I'd say it's the lack of corporations looking out for the public good. They seem to have lost sight that what's for the greater good also is good for America (and long-term business) as well. They've decided to pursue the almighty dollar RIGHT NOW and to hell with everything else, without considering the societal cost.

I've seen what conscience-less companies have done to towns such as Flint, Mich., and East St. Louis, Ill., and it ain't pretty. And this sort of attitude has been creeping into the mainstream for a long time. Not every corporation is doing it, but an awful lot are. Anyone who denies this is wearing blinders.

I don't know if the answer is government intervention as much as it is the American populace shaming these companies, instead of being an apologist for them.

Again, for profit companies don't exist for the greater good of all Americans nor the cities where they are located.  We can blame the profit motives of corporations for picking up stakes and moving manufacturing jobs to China.  I don't argue your points about Flint and ESL.  From what I read, Detroit is almost skeletal remains of what it used to be. 

It's not only the corporations who are to blame, you can also hand some of that blame on unions who priced jobs out of the US market into places like China, Mexico, and India.  The U.S. consumer also gets some of the blame for expecting to be able to pay the same or less for a new washing machine today than what they paid for their old one they bought 10-15 years ago as well as wanting to maintain a standard of living which has priced them out of many job skill markets.

We need to rely on innovation and transition to being a leader in higher tech jobs and develop an affordable education system which will help staff jobs like that.  Whether we like it or not, the U.S. is becoming a more tech-heavy and service economy, manufacturing which is labor intensive is going to continue to go overseas and to Mexico where the standards of living are lower.

"Shaming" corporations simply does not work.  It only makes them want to do less business here in the states.  The only real method we have to shame them is via the gov't.

[nathanm]

As well, with your trickle down notion, tax breaks on $1mm are proportionately less than at $4mm.  Tax breaks are an incentive in a growing economy, but unless sales are rising, why hire more people?

Good you see that tax breaks are only effective at increasing hiring in a growing economy, not in a stagnant one.

[we vs us]

With the exception of mutually agreed upon numbers in "quality jobs" programs like the state of Oklahoma has, the government cannot mandate how many people a company should employ for a given profit structure.  Otherwise you are slipping ever so close to those dreaded "c" and "s" words.  The government can mandate what minimum wages are for trades on government contracts and projects it contracts out via Davis Bacon.  They can't say how many pipefitters, welders, riveters, concrete finishers, floor sweepers, electrical journeymen, etc. a contractor must use to complete a project.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not advocating anything here.  My point is that, Reagan proposed trickle down economics as a grand bargain, a new way to view (among other things) the relationship between labor, capital, and ownership.  In fact, the idea itself is as old as society, but he recast it in a compelling way and it's been an underlying assumption in the way we (individuals, companies, and government) interface with our economy. 

And he only proposed it as an idea, not as a policy with percentages and quotas attached.  Simply:  we'll pump money into the oligarchy so long as the oligarchy gives back.  But now the feedback mechanism is borked, so that we're giving to the oligarchy but the oligarchy is hoarding while the rest of us slowly become poorer and poorer.  Generally speaking, of course. 

I'm talking about the demise of a certain social contract, not federal policy.

[guido911]

Again, for profit companies don't exist for the greater good of all Americans nor the cities where they are located. 

Exactly. I am not sure where the notion that a for profit company has any obligation to provide for the greater good of anything came from.

[we vs us]

Exactly. I am not sure where the notion that a for profit company has any obligation to provide for the greater good of anything came from.

Then why should we care about them?

Restated:  what interest should we have in nurturing them? 

[rwarn17588]

Exactly. I am not sure where the notion that a for profit company has any obligation to provide for the greater good of anything came from.

Helping create happier potential customers doesn't mean anything? There's a point where caring about nothing but chasing money becomes penny-wise and pound-foolish.