Layoffs and more layoffs and the latest job reports.

Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics had good news when it came to the month of May's unemployment claims and job creation, all I have heard in the news lately are stories about layoffs. 

IBM is allegedly sacking at least 3,000 employees worldwide.  There was big hoopla over a Manhattan law firm, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, laying off 60 attorneys and 110 support staff, something that was unprecedented in its 82 year history.   The construction vehicle and equipment company, Caterpillar, has laid off about 800 works starting last month.  And many banks and other businesses are allegedly laying off workers in spite of record profits.  Also not to mention all of the layoffs that have and will result from congresses budget sequester.

These layoffs will have ripple effects as all of these people loose their spending power and can no longer pump their dollars into the economy.  Businesses that once served them will stop getting a regular money in and they will eventually be forced to close their doors.  Layoffs like the ones reported above are likely to have a strong ripple effect on other jobs and the economy as a whole.

On a side note, I think that companies are starting to realize that they can work much more efficiently with today's computer and networking technology and there is no point in keeping around workers that they don't have to keep around.

To me it looks like we are getting ready for recession round-two and I think it is going to be a scarier bout than the first one. 

This is where the government should step in and create more jobs, but the Ayn Rand disciple Republicans will have none of that,  as they make sure the government sequester takes away even more jobs.

Another scary bit of news I have heard that it is getting harder and harder for Harvard Law School graduates to find jobs.  A Harvard Law degree was an almost certain path to employment years ago,  I have heard that as much as 30 percent of their graduates cannot find jobs.

I am not sure why so many people want to go into law and not study medicine.  Law must be an easier way to earn money, but now that lawyers seem to be tripping over each other you would think that at least some people would want to choose medicine for a guaranteed well paying job and career.  One thing that scares me about the glut of lawyers is that they have to find ways to drum-up business which will mean a future of a lot of unnecessary lawsuits.

I hope all of these layoffs stop at some point, but I get the feeling that this is only the beginning.

Recommended Reading: "Pity the Billionaire" by Thomas Frank.

Here is another book by Thomas Frank that explores the crazy political and economic situation we are in now.  Frank deftly explains how after the 2008 economic crash many people expected a return to Keynesian economics.   You know John Maynard Keynes, he basically said that in order to have a strong economy the common folk have to remain employed in order to in turn have the money to spend to pump up the economy and create economic growth.  This has to be done at all costs, even if the federal government has to be the employer of last resort, creating jobs where the private sector just won't.   Of course the government would have to tax the wealthy to pay for all this, and this has now become a taboo topic.

What happened after 2008 was pretty much the opposite the bailout was a supply side solution basically giving money to banks and other financial institutions that were too big to fail.  This of course never trickled down to the common folk an we still have high unemployment today. 

Frank illustrates how adamantly the right-wing yahoos and the wealthy wan to keep the United States on the same course of tax cuts for the wealthy, a government that is shrunk down into an ineffectual peanut, and big business given a wide berth to do what every the hell it wants. 

Recently the Huffington Post had a blended picture of George W. Bush and President Obama calling him George W. Obama to illustrate how the Obama administration is pretty much just a continuation of the Bush administration.  Obama certainly wasn't the agent of change he promised to be.  So are Titanic of an economy is not getting turned around we are just headed for the same iceberg over and over again. 

I wish more people would read Frank's book.   You can buy a copy from Amazon.com here:

Pity the Billionaire by Thomas Frank.

The immigration reform and its potential impact on employment

A while ago, I was surfing the net to get more information about "The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013" the latest in immigration reform, and one that has been touted by the media as good one.

You know who likes this bill, Grover (I wish he could be as nice as his namesake Muppet) Norquist.  I saw an opinion piece he wrote for the British newspaper, "The Guardian."  He says that the bill will be good for the American economy.

 

Why does he like the bill? For the same reason all the Republicans like the bill (but some do pretend to hate it), because it basically opens the flood gates for immigration.   With more available people to compete for jobs, wages will go down, it is the simply law of supply and demand.  Republicans will not be happy until Americans are making the same wages as the Chinese and Indians (of India not Native Americans).  

The bill does call for more border security, but only across Mexico as many of the states that border Mexico have pleaded for.  I do not believe the bill does much for the Canadian border or any other way someone can enter this country illegally.  

In times of economic prosperity, when America has a growth economy, it makes sense to allow for immigration, but in the shrinking economy that Americans are living in, it would make sense to freeze immigration until unemployment dips below 4% or so.

Australia, which has a very strict anti-immigration policy, and no countries bordering it, currently has only 5.6 percent unemployment as opposed to America's 7.6.

Wealthy Americans will not be happy until unemployment is around 26% as in Greece which would eventually enable them to drive wages down to a fraction of what they currently are at least as low as mainland China's. 

Then why are some Republican politicians opposed to the bill?  Perhaps it is to appeal to some of their racist constituents or perhaps they just want to keep President Obama from appearing to move things forward with immigration and by doing this they make him look even more inept than he already does.

President Obama is behind giving Visas to highly-skilled foreigners in order to help grow the economy, but I think this also hurts opportunities for American citizens.  If we had a strict anti-immigration policy, companies would be forced to pay to train Americans to fill the jobs they need.  This would benefit the American worker who would gain a useful skill set and make him employable as well in demand in the workforce.  It would also benefit the college or institution that has to train him.  The only one that looses out is the company that has to pay for the training.  It is much easier and cheaper to import foreign laborers that already have the skill sets that American companies need.  It is even cheaper if the company can off-shore the jobs altogether.

And then there is the issue of security.  While America has always been a country made great by immigrants who have left their oppressive countries to be free in the USA, the times have changed greatly.  While immigrants love to come here to enjoy a higher quality of life, there is much hate and envy of the United States.  We have to make sure that at all entry points,not just the borders, that we are not letting in foreign terrorists.  Any immigration reform act should have strict provisions for this, but of course it does not.

In summary I think we should keep the doors to immigrants closed as much as possible until our economy makes a full recovery.  I think that it is awful that there are liberal groups pushing for both lax immigration and raising the minimum wage, because the influx of cheap labor, especially in hard economic times, would only keep wages down.

 

The so called "fiscal cliff deal" and the connection between higher taxes on the rich and lower unemployment.

Well, they made a deal, but I am not sure of all of the ramifications.  I think it would have been better to go off the "fiscal cliff' instead of taking the miserable deal that President Obama agreed on.

Taxes will increase on people making over $400,000 and everyone will have to pay social security tax on the first $113,000 they earn every year. 

I heard a lot of rich people belly-aching that increase taxes on them will prevent them from creating jobs (perhaps in China, as we all know they are not creating any here). 

This is in spite of the fact that traditionally as taxes go up on the wealthy unemployment goes down.  While economists have not been able to find a logical correlation for this it still has happened historically.  I have a theory,  I think when the wealthy start getting extra-taxes dumped on them, they create jobs in order to have the tax burden shifted off of them and back on to the middle-class and poor. 

If my theory is correct and the increased taxes on people making over $400,000 a year is sustained, I think we could see unemployment drop within the next year or two.

I think things would have been even better if they had raised taxes on people making over $250,000 per year as originally proposed.  Unless you live in California or the Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic United States, $250,000 per year is a lot of money.  In any other place in the United States you would really be considered rich, because your cost of living is so low.

We will see how things will go with this deal, but frankly, I'm not very optimistic. 

Let's jump off the "Fiscal Cliff" and see what happens!

I don't like all of this media hype about the "fiscal cliff' we are going to fall off of if we let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2013.  Did you notice that no one bothered to mention this before the Presidential election?  All of the sudden this is a big problem, but I don't think it is really. 

If there is such a great concern over the deficit then increased tax revenues when the Bush tax-cuts end will certainly be welcomed.    I don't think it will slow economic growth much more than it is now.

President Obama has to behave like a real lame-duck and stand his ground on this issue and make sure wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes.   "Well, if you tax all the wealthy, how will they create all those jobs people need?" you ask.   We are not taxing them so much now, and they are not creating jobs.  American workers are a bad investment, we are too expensive, they would rather hire capable Chinese workers who are available in the hundreds of millions at the fraction of the price.  And even better Obama-care doesn't extend to China, so they won't have to worry about providing health care for those people.

Also we have to look at history.  Traditionally, when taxes on the wealthy have been increased the economy has improved.  Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman in his book "End This Depression Now." says that there is no real provable correlation between raising taxes on the wealthy and economic improvement, that it just looks like it could be a coincidence that the economy improves when taxes are raised on the wealthy.  However, I think there could be a real correlation.  Perhaps when the wealthy start realizing that they will have to start picking up the tax bill, they start working on fixing the economy in order to have the tax burden shifted back on the middle class.  They really want to run the economy into the ground, that is why they are having the Republicans in the House trying to stand their ground on not raising taxes on the wealthy.  I am by no means Nobel Prize material, so what really do I know, but let's raise taxes on the wealthy and see what happens.

President Obama, please be a real lame-duck and don't let John Boehner and Mitch McConnell walk all over you.  Please grab hold of them and force them to jump down the "fiscal cliff" with everyone else.

Mitt Romney is "all about jobs" all about sending them overseas that is....

Regardless of whether or not you believe Mitt Romney when he says that he was not responsible for sending thousands of jobs overseas when he was allegedly running (or not running) Bain Capital, you still have to ask what his plan is for creating jobs when he is elected President, and will these be well paying head-of-household jobs, or menial minimum wage job?

What will his strategy or, "statergery" as George W. Bush was known to call it, for creating new jobs.

Are lots and lots of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and big business the answer?  I don't think so.  If you put more money in the hands of the wealthy who says they are going to spend it? Why not just invest in gold, stocks and bonds and forget about creating jobs?  If you give more tax cuts to big business they will only invest countries like mainland China where the labor costs are low, China should probably have plenty of jobs in the future thanks to people like Romney.

Will it be through austerity measures? You know the Republicans are into shrinking government.  Therefore the massive downsizing of government and the laying off of thousands upon thousands of government workers would create more jobs?  How does that work?

Would keeping interest rates low so his Wall Street buddies can continue to play high-stakes casino with our economy be the answer?  Another burst bubble and companies folding like Lehman Brothers would create more jobs for sure.

Will cutting back on social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid  be the answer?  By forcing baby boomers to stay in the workforce longer to retain a decent standard of living and benefits,  the job market will remain closed to young workers looking for their first job.

Would ending Obamacare create jobs?  With not everyone having to have insurance, insurance companies would not have to hire all those extra people to cope with the new higher demand for insurance coverage.

Mitt shouldn't focus on defending his reputation, it is just not worth it.  What he should focus on is showing the American people his great plan for creating jobs, which he won't because he has no plan or intention of creating jobs, at least not in this country.  The media should really stick it to him, and demand to know his plan for turning around the American economy, because I don't think he really has any.

An alternate retort Romney could have come up with would be to say, "Hey look President Obama, if you think off-shoring is a bad thing, you had four years to get Congress to pass legislation to stop off-shoring and you did nothing."  Of course the problem with that is Romney has no interest in stopping off-shoring when elected President and apparently neither will President Obama. 

Neither of these candidates want to help this country.  The American voter's choices are really between the devil and the deep blue sea.
 

Immigration reform means more people compete for fewer jobs.

That new immigration policy President Obama announced was a real humdinger.  It will allow 800,000 illegal aliens who had come to United States when they were sixteen years or younger to reside and work here. 

Mitt Romney has refused to make any real comment coming out against this policy because it would seem that he would not want to offend the Latino community whose vote is very important for the upcoming election.  However, I believe that the Republicans want this new policy even more than the Democrats do.  It will mean 800,000 more people competing in a shrinking job market, driving labor costs down even further, now if we could only get rid of that pesky minimum wage....

The country that is renowned for having a very strict immigration policy is Australia.  I checked online to see what their unemployment rate was like since the current economic downturn is supposed to be worldwide.  The statistic I found was that in April 2012 their unemployment was only 4.9%.  Wow, that's about equal to the United States unemployment rate before the economic downturn in 2008.

It is very easy to see the purpose of immigration, which is to bring labor costs down.  It may make sense in times of prosperity, but it does not make sense in times of despair.  "But things are looking up" you say.  I don't think things will look up until our unemployment rate is the same as Australia's.

No Democrat or Republican is pushing for a mandate of the E-Verify system to establish a nationwide citizenship verification system.  E-Verify was put into place after 9/11 in order to enhance security, but no one wants to use it to get rid of cheap illegal labor.  

Also the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted down the "U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act" which was aimed at giving the right for a person to ask to speak to a customer service representative in the United States.  Over 500,000 call center jobs in the last six years have been lost to off-shoring and this bill would have prevented the loss of even more jobs.  

By looking the actions of both the Democrats and the GOP and the actions of both the executive and legislative branches of our government, Americans can see that we are the victims of a two man con came.  A game that will bring the same 30 percent unemployment that some European countries currently have to the United States.  Neither party is looking to alleviate this unemployment situation, they appear to only want to make things worse.  Is there no one out there who can help us?

The job situation and the real road to serfdom.

A reporter friend of mine recently got laid off, as the economic downturn and advancements in information technology have taken a great toll on jobs in the newspaper industry. He was a bureau reporter for a newspaper in a relatively small market, and he knew it was coming and wasn't surprised when it did finally come, it was like what took them so long? It was a family owned newspaper, therefore the publisher had a little bit of a heart, I guess.

What kills me is that he replaced a reporter who held the position for almost thirty years, and who retired on his own terms. It took him several weeks to get out of the office and retire completely. I am just angry that the previous generation had this kind of job security, one that Generation X or our children will never have.

And you get people like Thomas L. Friedman, author of the books "The World is Flat" and "That Used to Be Us," who say that it is good thing. That we all have to reinvent ourselves and work our butts off to provide a unique service or product just in order to have the right to survive. All the while knowing that the previous generations just had to fall off a log in order to get a life long job or career. This is ridiculous we are heading backwards instead of forwards. In fact, I think we are heading all the way back to the dark ages, but more on that later.

I am encountering all sorts of people in every age group and every level of education who are either recently laid-off and struggling to find a new job, or entering the job market for the first time and unable to find work. With the recent poor jobs report and companies like HP announcing as many as 25,000 layoffs, I cannot imagine things getting better anytime soon.

But this is the dream of the wealthy, those that own the means of production. They have and will continue to off-shore as many jobs as possible. They will make sure that labor markets worldwide are like the labor markets in China. They will make sure that our working future is a lot like Foxconn in mainland China. Foxconn manufactures electronic components for companies like Apple, and runs what basically sounds like a labor camp where the workers live miserable lives making only two dollars an hour. Their only means of outlet appears to be suicide as they protest their poor working conditions. This is our future, but it sounds like the past.

There is a famous book that conservatives use as their economic manifesto. It is called the "The Road to Serfdom" by an Austrian economist,  Friedrich August Hayek.  It basically warns of the evils of socialism and how if government is allowed to grow out of control we will all become "serfs" of an oppressive overlord government.  Ah, but that wasn't feudalism.  Feudalism was where there was no government at all.  There was just a feudal lord who was the landowner, the knights who were like his sword-for-hire security detail, a type of police or enforcers, and the serfs who worked his land and produced crops for the feudal lord.  The wealthy people of the United States and probably the rest of the West want desperately to go back to this system.  A system where only their word is law and workers have absolutely no rights.   You can see this as the rich so desperately want to downsize federal and state governments, but always have a hand in their local government to make sure that they have more than their fair share of power in the area where they live, they desperately want and need to micromanage their own backyard. 

But why would Hayek call his book "The Road to Serfdom"?  Because the wealthy are notorious for saying something is white when it is actually black.  Look at the accounting firm Arthur Anderson who tricked shareholders into thinking everything was OK by calling Enron's losses profits.

United States is moving to real serfdom, much more quickly than I have expected, as President Obama has refused to take any helpful action for getting Americans back to work.  What scares me is now I am hearing a lot of Democrats say well maybe we should vote for Romney, just to shake things up a bit and see what he does.  The most shocking place I have encountered this suggestion is Paul Krugman's new book "End This Depression Now,"  where he basically states that Romney has some moderate economic advisers that might advise him to do the right thing and move away from the supply-side self-correcting market model we are following now, to a more Keynesian approach.  This is not bloody likely.

I am certain that if re-elected Obama will continue to do nothing about the unemployment situation, but I am also certain that whatever action Romney will take, it will only make things worse.

Just a note about the picture above.  It was a dispenser of an employment advertisement magazine called "Top Jobs" and it now used for garbage.  A perfect statement for what's going on in this country.

The death of retail stores and jobs....

Now, I hate being a Luddite, I think overall progress is usually for the common good. But I really don't understand what will happen when retail sales jobs start to disappear. Retail sales for many people is a great way to enter or re-enter the workforce, especially if you have no special skills and don't have more than a high school diploma or a bachelor's degree.


What will kill retail? People walking around brick-and-mortar stores with their iPhone/Android apps that show if they can get a cheaper deal for the same product online. Already struggling electronic stores will probably fold by the end of next year. I haven't seen these apps in action, but I would imagine this might be useful for high-end clothing as well.

I think many stores will be forced to close because their overhead expenses are much higher than some guy or gal selling merchandise out of their basement using the Internet.

When Republicans keep saying that the future of economic growth is in small business, what do they mean? I think they mean that everyone will be selling stuff out of their basement over the Internet. But how practical or easy is that? How practical or easy is it to start any small business for that matter? How easy is it to raise capital to start a small business, especially now when the banks are tight about who they loan money to? I don't believe that the Republicans think about these things when they say that things like small business is the future of the economy. But what else are they going to say when they know that the Internet is slowly killing traditional brick-and-mortar businesses, and what else are they going to say when they want to eliminate as many government jobs as possible because their wealthy "1 percent buddies" are the only ones who can afford to pay taxes and they don't want to.

It used to be that you worked hard and saved money to start a business of your own, but how will that be possible when their are no more jobs left. And who will loan you money when you don't have a job.

Some people say that the new economy created by the innovations of the Internet and wireless technology are exciting, and that innovators like Steve Jobs, the late Apple founder, and Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon will be revered as major driving forces behind great economic change and the emerging new economy, but I think ultimately they will be hated for making so many jobs disappear especially in the retail sector, a major employer of the post-industrial world.

How do you stop the "Wall Street Occupation"? Turn it into a job fair!

I am glad the people occupying Wall Street have not given up in spite of the NYC's many efforts to remove them. I am upset at the police officers that have to intervene when the demonstrations get a little out of hand. I understand that they are just doing their job, what their superiors tell them to do, but I do not think they understand that they are on the same side as the Wall Street protesters. Soon their jobs will be in jeopardy as well, and maybe they will come to their senses and join the protest or start demonstrating themselves.
A lot of politicians have come to give a little lip service to this event, or events plural as they have sprung up in other cities as well, but still no one is taking any real action.
If the wealthy one percent really cared, what they should do is hold a jobs fair at Zuccotti Park and make sure all of the protesters have what everyone wants, a decent paying job and some dignity. But as you guessed, they don't care. These protests could swell to massive riots and they still wouldn't care. They know they have the politicians right in their pockets and that plutocracy with prevail.
Corporate America's profits are the only things swelling right now and yet they still have no interest in creating jobs in this country. Republicans, the purveyors of plutocracy, only propose more breaks for big business, small business and the wealthy. They have plenty of breaks, big business doesn't pay any taxes usually, and they still haven't created any jobs. You can give the top one percent all the breaks in the world, but it won't matter, they still won't do anything for the American economy in return. Republicans don't get it, there is no return on your money when you invest in the wealthy.
Again if they really cared, you would see a big job's fair in NYC, but they don't. That is why it is up to government to step in and create jobs for these people, but they won't either because the wealthy have the politicians in their pockets. The plutocratic powers-that-be will continue to shrink government leading to even more layoffs. Someone needs to take action, someone needs to come to our aide, to help out the Wall Street protesters, but no one ever will.

Job stimulus bill fails while a job crushing bill passes.

Although it is impossible for me to post here on a regular basis, I am compelled to write about the failure of the job stimulus bill that was recently voted on and rejected by the Senate and the free trade act with South Korea that sailed right through congress.

With all of the media coverage about the failed job stimulus bill and the Wall Street occupation, the media somehow forgot to cover the free trade agreement with South Korea that was just approved by congress. No one was on TV debating this issue, how disgusting.

Let me tell you something about South Korea, with this free trade agreement the United States will be importing tons of stuff from Korea, but the Koreans will probably import next to nothing of American goods. The Korean government will tell its people to only buy Korean made goods and don't touch American made products. In his book, "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and The Secret History of Capitalism" Korean-born economist Ha-Joon Chang illustrates how South Korea pumped up its economy by forcing its people to buy only Korean made products and nothing else. They did before and they most certainly will do it again. They couldn't care less about the collapse of the United States economy. They will flood our markets with tons of cheaper Korean made goods and they will not want to buy any American products in return.

I will be surprised if the Koreans will buy even one American car. But you are going be kissing even more manufacturing jobs good-bye, if there are any left in the United States to say good-bye to. And then this is only the beginning. South Korea is the starter county for free trade with all of Asia which will pretty much spell the economic end of the middle class as we know it. You think unemployment is bad now, just wait...

And while all of this is going on President Obama couldn't get much needed jobs stimulus bill passed because it increases taxes on the wealthy. Shame on the two democrats that voted against this bill. I hope they loose their Senate seats, of course the monsters who replace them will not be any better.

I just saw another article from npr that said that the Senate doesn't want to pass this bill because over 50 percent of them are millionaires themselves, and I believe that close to 100 percent of them have nothing approaching a conscience.

Congresses actions are just throwing gasoline on the economic collapse fire. This is why we so desperately need clean elections. Elections that are state run, where candidates cannot take money from outside sources for their campaigns. Everything is paid for by the state and everyone is given an equal shot to be elected.

Regardless of what your social studies teacher told you, the United States is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy, and these recent congressional actions prove it.

Congress and Budget Blithering

I can't believe I haven't posted here at all this year. Just like many of the people who would take the time to read this post, I am a working stiff. I have work off-the-books overtime just to keep my job, and I have to enroll in courses and study just to prepare for the time when I may no longer have a job, which may be soon. The economy isn't getting any better, and I need to brace myself for when I have to start collecting unemployment just like many of you are or will be.

I am only posting here now because I am so upset about the banter between President Obama and Speaker of the House John "Bonehead" Boehner over raising the debt ceiling and passing a budget. President Obama has been very weakly trying to get across the message that we need to tax the wealthy, while Boehner very loudly states he just wants budget cuts, cuts and more cuts.

Boehner's Congressional District suffers over 9% unemployment just like the rest of the country, how high does unemployment have to get before someone runs against this Bozo and takes his seat away from the Nazi Republicans out to destroy this country.

Federal budget cuts will just amount to more unemployment. The government needs to step in an create jobs, not take more jobs away. Already the US Post Office plans to cut thousands of jobs, and if Boehner gets his way more Federal jobs will just disappear, but no one is calling him a "job killer" the label that House Republicans put on the health care reform bill. Let's face it private industry is not going to pick up the slack for all of the government jobs we are going to loose with the substantial budget cuts that Republicans pose.

Actually, private industry will wind-up suffering as well, as budget cuts result in the end of government contracting, and laid-off federal employees will stop spending money in the retail and food markets which will beget more lay-offs. The unemployment that the budget cuts will create will cause such a great feedback loop of more unemployment that the economy will have no other recourse but to crash again, this time probably harder than before.

In their book "Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit from the Next Global Meltdown," authors, David and Robert Wiedemar and Cindy Spitzer predict that government jobs will be a safe haven from the next big ecnomic downturn which they predict will befall us within the next couple of years. (They were right about the real estate bubble in a previous book published before the crash, but who couldn't see that coming?) With all of the Federal spending cuts coming their will be no save haven in Federal jobs or any government jobs for that matter.

Let's face it, there is a huge budget deficit and the only way to close the gap is raise revenue and tax the crap out of the rich and add large tariffs to imported goods, something Congress and the President are very reluctant to do because the rich have them in their pockets.

You know the wealthy have Boehner in their pocket because he comes from a fairly rural district with 9% unemployment. A few of his siblings are even unemployed according to Wikipedia. With his background he should really be a Democrat, but you know the wealthy and the corporate interests are bank rolling him, so he will keep fighting to run this country into the ground.

If the Republicans have their way and all we have is cuts, cuts and more cuts to the budget in a time where the Federal government really needs to step in and spend money to create jobs, you are going to see an economic collapse greater than the one we saw in 2008.

Government's answer to controlling spending: Layoffs and more layoffs

The Tea Party republicans are really making their voices heard, "We don't want to pay any more taxes, period!" Actually, it is more like we don't want to pay any taxes, but that's another story. The general politicians response on the federal, state, and local level is to have hiring freezes, pay freezes and now they are talking about layoffs, major layoffs.

Now, gee, with unemployment rates in many states at an all time high, do more layoffs really make sense? The government is still going to have to pay out unemployment for many former employees for who knows how long.

This is not a smart strategy. I am sure there is waste in many other areas of government that have nothing to with employee salaries and benefits, but they are not favorable targets like poor working class people.

Ages ago government jobs had to offer great benefits and pensions in order to compete with private industry. Now private industry jobs are disappearing faster than ever, and therefore government no longer wants to offer jobs with benefits to its workers. Instead of just laying off people indiscriminately, government should go to their workers' labor unions and ask them to grandfather their benefits, and make sacrifices in order to keep their jobs, and not even think about job cuts to contribute to the welfare rolls.

I recently heard a quote from some congressional committee looking to save money, that many federal employees are making six figure salaries and doing much better than their private sector counterparts. The reason federal workers in the DC area make so much money is because housing is so damn expensive, to quote former NY gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan, "The rent is too damn high!" Therefore they have to pay workers big salaries. Housing subsidies for government workers would be one way to justifiably lower federal workers salaries, but just making stupid comments like federal workers are making more than private sector workers is just ridiculous, and meant to get Tea Party yahoos all roused and riled up.

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt created the Work Projects Administration, which actually created jobs for the many unemployed. This is what we need now, not Tea Party Republicans pushing their government shrinking agenda.

Laying off government workers is not a solution to our economic woes, it will just contribute to already out of control unemployment, and do little else. It is just another way the rich want to make sure that they don't have to pick up the bill through increased income taxes which is what they should be doing.