Economics

[southsidesignmaker]

Trade deficit with China costing the U.S. 500k jobs this year


By Hao Li | October 7, 2010 2:23 PM EDT

The widening U.S. trade deficit with China will displace over 500,000 net jobs in the U.S. in 2010, according to Robert E. Scott of the Economic Policy Institute.


www.ibtimes.com/articles/69697/20101007/trade-deficit-with-china-costing-the-u-s-500k-jobs.htm


To put that in context, private employment in the U.S. is 7.5 million lower than it was three years ago, but has increased at an average rate of 95,000 per month so far in 2010. The U.S. civilian labor force currently stands at 154 million.



China's trade surplus with the U.S. is being fueled by "massive, illegal currency manipulation, subsidies, and other unfair trade practices," said Scott. This makes Chinese goods cheaper than U.S. goods and displaces U.S. manufacturing jobs to China.

More News
China sets yuan mid-point at record high of 6.6830
Labour demand: Australian parliament should consider migration
Extra holiday penalties for Queensland workers serve as bitter pill for businesses

Must Read
General view of Microsoft Corporation headquartersApp Developers Give Windows Phone 7 Mixed Reviews
People walk past a shop window decorated for the Christmas holiday seasonUS shoppers to greet holiday season with caution
One-in-Five employers to hire full-time, permanent staff in Q4One-in-Five employers to hire full-time



China's currency, the yuan, is estimated to be 35 to 40 percent undervalued. China restricts capital flow in and out of the country and its government buys foreign currencies to keep its own currency undervalued.



If all the countries in the world, especially China, stopped manipulating their currencies, the U.S. would have roughly 1 million more jobs, said Scott.



China also provides subsidies to its exporters in the form of loans, cheap input materials, and by granting land usage. Moreover, it restricts the selling of foreign goods in its markets.



Alleged manipulation and illegal subsidies alone, of course, are not responsible for the U.S. trade deficit with China; legitimate competitive advantages like cheap labor also play a role.



But whatever the causes, the U.S. has a huge trade deficit with China, totaling $267 billion in 2010 by Scott's estimate, and manufacturing by jobs have gone to China.



Between 2001 and 2008 alone, China displaced 2.4 million U.S. jobs, and 60 percent of those were in the manufacturing sector. Since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the U.S. has lost 5.5 million manufacturing jobs, said Scott.



Email Hao Li in New York at [e-mail].

[macrockett]

A couple of points:

The trend in incomes, in the private sector, in the last decade has been flat to down. We have a pretty good idea as to why, productivity and outsourcing. We need less people to do the same things and labor is much cheaper outside the U.S. Naperville is not immune. Therefore, we cannot afford to spend money on things not absolutely essential.

Second point: Oswego District 308 grew by 600 students. District 204 ...not so much...well close to 0 or maybe we lost some... Wonder how Plainfield did? I believe our growth is over, finished and we will start losing students faster than we gain new ones.

Finally, if Oswego can add capacity for 1200 students at a cost of $40-50 million (see below), I think we could have added 725 for $40 million or less. If we added 24 class rooms at the cost of $900 per square foot (considered to be about 3x the cost of adding a class room) , or ($900 x 24 rooms x 900sq feet per class room) that equals $19.4 million. If you add the rear hallways and additional cafeteria space for the other $20 million (doing all of this in the space between the three wings) does anyone still doubt this could not have been done? Then show me your numbers. (also see the cost of Naperville Central renovation for $87 million I mentioned before, a much larger and more intrusive project than proposed at NVHS).

Oh and does the discussion below at Oswego seem like deja vu?


triblocal.com/naperville/2010/09/30/naperville-median-income-dips-below-100000/

Naperville median income dips below $100,000
By Joseph Ruzich Special to the Tribune Sep. 30 at 1:13 p.m.

The median household income for Naperville residents has been steadily declining for over a decade and dipped below $100,000 in 2009, according to data released this week by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Heartland Alliance Social Impact Research Center.

While the median household income in Naperville for 2009 was $98,488, which is still well above the state’s median household income of $59,975, it declined from its peak of $114,274 in 1999, according to the report.

The median household income in DuPage County was $77,033 in 2009. But since 2000, the DuPage median household income has declined by $10,690.

“Anytime someone experiences an income drop it can shake up their lives,” said Amy Terpstra, associate director at the Social Impact Research Center at the Heartland Alliance. “Sometimes people call them the working poor, those who have to make a choice of paying rent or putting food on the table.”

Terpstra blames a shift in the job market for the downward income trend in DuPage County and the Midwest region.

“A shift in the economy began long before the recession,” said Terpstra. “Many of the good-paying, manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many people are now shifting into service industry jobs which pay less and offer fewer benefits. It’s this broader shift that has led to the erosion of income.”


Terpstra added that the cost of living is high in Naperville.

Charles McLimans, executive director of the Loaves & Fishes Community Pantry in Naperville, said the pantry started a program in 2008 that assists Naperville families with higher incomes.

“We had one family whose two family member income went down to one and only had enough money to pay the mortgage,” said McLimans. “Families with similar situations started coming to us. We didn’t want to turn people away.”

He said about 3 percent of the 1,600 people they serve are in the program.

The higher income food program is only open to Naperville residents.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Parents offer views on school district growth
Official: Third high school, two elementary schools needed by '14-'15

by Lyle R. Rolfe

9/9/2010


More than 40 members of the Grande Park Elementary School PTA learned Tuesday night that Oswego School District administrators are considering a third high school and a full-day kindergarten program.

Grande Park, located in the Plainfield area of the school district is the elementary school with the lowest student enrollment in the district, according to Principal Beth Wulf.

This school could be affected by both proposals, Dr. Carla Johnson, executive director of teaching and learning for the district, told the PTA members.

She was one of four administrators speaking to PTAs in four elementary schools Tuesday in advance of a presentation on the district's 20/20 Vision, which will be presented to school board members next Monday night, Sept. 13. The other elementary school PTAs visited were Hunt Club in Oswego and The Wheatlands and Homestead in the Aurora section of the district.

Johnson told the parents the district will need a third high school and two new elementary schools by 2014-15 to handle the expected increase in enrollment by that time.

She noted that the district now has an estimated enrollment of 16,800 students, up 600 over last year. New home construction is almost non-existent in the district, but she said the increase is being caused by children entering the schools from the existing homes occupied by young families.

"Some people have said we're using scare tactics, but these are no scare tactics. These are actual numbers," she said.

Johnson added that the plan proposed by the administration is to re-open East View in Oswego as an elementary school next year.

They also plan to redraw the boundaries for all elementary schools to allow them to have three full-day kindergarten centers in place of the present one at Southbury Elementary School in Oswego.

She said the locations for each center have not yet been decided. They probably would still have to turn some people away who want the full-day classes because of large demand and a shortage of space at the three centers.

One parent asked if they would still need two more elementary schools if the board does not approve the full-day kindergarten program for the home schools. Johnson said they will still need the space because enrollment for this year is already 3.5 percent higher than last year.

The two new elementary schools would open in the 2013-14 school year with full-day kindergarten being offered in all home schools to every student who wanted the full-day classes. Those wanting half-day classes would have to attend one of the three centers which would then be used only for half-day sessions, Johnson said.



Enrollment growth key to
need for third high school

She noted that they need a third high school to keep up with growth. Oswego East High School is overcrowded in common areas such as the cafeteria and locker rooms. She said OEHS and Oswego High each have a 2,400 student capacity but are expected to reach 2,500 each in two years.

The district purchased land on Ill. Route 126 as a possible site for the third high school, but it has problems with utilities not being close by so officials have been considering finding another site, she said. This land could still be used for other buildings such as an elementary-junior high site, so it most likely would not be sold, Johnson said.

This site would serve the area officials expect to be developed next which is in the Plainfield and Joliet areas of the district. Johnson noted that some residential building permits have been issued there recently for new homes.

She said the money for new schools would come from the $450 million general obligation referendum approved by voters in November 2006. She said there are enough funds in the issue to do all that they are recommending and still have additional bonding power because they are not recommending building all the schools suggested in the original referendum.

At the Jan. 11 board meeting, Doug Gallois, executive director of construction said they had sold $166,193,396 in bonds leaving the district with the authority to sell another $283,806,605.

Johnson told one parent that the district can sell bonds from the original issue until 2011. Any bonds not sold by that time would be lost.

However, Johnson said the district does not have the actual money.

"Some people thought we had the money and that the board had approved building the third high school, but this was not so. The people voted on giving the board the ability to issue bonds for new buildings but construction of a third high school was not approved," she said, adding that it still requires approval by board vote.

She said several options would be presented to the board in the plan.

They include putting overflow students into the present two high schools, which would result in larger class sizes. Other options included having split shifts in the high schools, using trailers or portable classrooms or adding onto both high schools as a temporary solution. The district could also decide to build a third high school.

She said it's up to the people to let the board know which option they favor.

"It would cost $40 to $50 million to build space for an additional 600 students in each school but that would be a temporary solution because we're still going to go beyond that enrollment. Once you reach the additional 600 students in each school, and you've passed the deadline for selling bonds, what do you do? You still have the problem," she said.

WOW, YOU HEAR THAT? $40-50 MILLION FOR 1200 KIDS? THAT HAS TO BE LOW!

Portables could cost $100,000 each she said and students have to go outside between the school and these rooms.

She said building a freshman center has been suggested as a solution, and added that they would need one for each high school to have equity. Two new buildings would be an additional expense and they would only be a Band-Aid to solving the problem, she added.

An additional cost to resolve the high school problem would be about $2 million per year in operating funds for teachers, support staff and materials, regardless of which alternate the board chooses, she said.

"Whatever we do, the kids are coming and we're going to need staff to accommodate them wherever they are," she said.

She noted that they would even need additional administrators in the present high schools if they went to a split shift to serve the longer hours school would be in session.

When she said a third high school had been estimated to cost $105 million, a couple parents thought this was a low figure and asked whether it would be comparable to OEHS.

One parent said they should build whatever they need, which he said should include a swimming pool.

The proposed design included a pool, but after discussion about the cost earlier this year, board members considered dropping the pool which had been estimated last April to cost $6 million.

Johnson said $105 million is a "very economical" cost for a new high school. "The board has asked us to be very fiscally responsible, but if you want more, let the board know. I can design whatever the community wants in a high school. It will be here for 50 years or more and if you think we should not scrimp costs, the board should know that," she said.



Official: Board hearing
only from opponents

Johnson said the board has been hearing only from residents who are opposed to building a third high school or spending any additional money.

One parent who said he works in a high school, said realtors are always interested in what high school district a home is in when they show it. Having higher taxes for better high schools is a negative compared to the benefits, he said, adding that trailers at high schools will bring property values down because people will not locate here.

Johnson said the estimated increase in property taxes for the third high school would be $64 per year over ten years for a $200,000 home.

She said the plan being proposed by the administration is that Murphy Junior High would be used for high school freshmen in 2012-13, for freshmen and sophomores in 2013-14, and as a regular junior high (grades 6-8) for the 2014-15 school year when the new third high school would open with freshmen, sophomores and juniors. The following year it would serve all four high school grades.

One parent asked if building larger high schools might be a solution. Johnson said the personal atmosphere begins to change when high school enrollments are 3,000 or larger.

Another parent asked about the need for a fourth high school. Johnson mentioned that this will be included in the administration's proposed ten year plan to be presented to the board next Monday.

The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the second floor Community Room of Oswego East High School, 1525 Harvey Road, Oswego.

Residents will be given time to make comments or ask questions before the presentation, but the policy has been that questions are not answered during the meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[doctorwho]

Oct 8, 2010 8:10:49 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Naperville median income dips below $100,000
By Joseph Ruzich Special to the Tribune Sep. 30 at 1:13 p.m.

* Share on Facebook
* Share on Twitter
* Print
* Email

Loaves and Fishes Community Pantry

Loaves and Fishes Community Pantry shoppers look through loaves of bread at the pantry during the summer. (Heather Charles/ Chicago Tribune)

The median household income for Naperville residents has been steadily declining for over a decade and dipped below $100,000 in 2009, according to data released this week by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Heartland Alliance Social Impact Research Center.

While the median household income in Naperville for 2009 was $98,488, which is still well above the state’s median household income of $59,975, it declined from its peak of $114,274 in 1999, according to the report.

The median household income in DuPage County was $77,033 in 2009. But since 2000, the DuPage median household income has declined by $10,690.

“Anytime someone experiences an income drop it can shake up their lives,” said Amy Terpstra, associate director at the Social Impact Research Center at the Heartland Alliance. “Sometimes people call them the working poor, those who have to make a choice of paying rent or putting food on the table.”

Terpstra blames a shift in the job market for the downward income trend in DuPage County and the Midwest region.

“A shift in the economy began long before the recession,” said Terpstra. “Many of the good-paying, manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many people are now shifting into service industry jobs which pay less and offer fewer benefits. It’s this broader shift that has led to the erosion of income.”

Terpstra added that the cost of living is high in Naperville.

Charles McLimans, executive director of the Loaves & Fishes Community Pantry in Naperville, said the pantry started a program in 2008 that assists Naperville families with higher incomes.

“We had one family whose two family member income went down to one and only had enough money to pay the mortgage,” said McLimans. “Families with similar situations started coming to us. We didn’t want to turn people away.”

He said about 3 percent of the 1,600 people they serve are in the program.

The higher income food program is only open to Naperville residents.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parents offer views on school district growth
Official: Third high school, two elementary schools needed by '14-'15

by Lyle R. Rolfe

9/9/2010


More than 40 members of the Grande Park Elementary School PTA learned Tuesday night that Oswego School District administrators are considering a third high school and a full-day kindergarten program.

Grande Park, located in the Plainfield area of the school district is the elementary school with the lowest student enrollment in the district, according to Principal Beth Wulf.

This school could be affected by both proposals, Dr. Carla Johnson, executive director of teaching and learning for the district, told the PTA members.

She was one of four administrators speaking to PTAs in four elementary schools Tuesday in advance of a presentation on the district's 20/20 Vision, which will be presented to school board members next Monday night, Sept. 13. The other elementary school PTAs visited were Hunt Club in Oswego and The Wheatlands and Homestead in the Aurora section of the district.

Johnson told the parents the district will need a third high school and two new elementary schools by 2014-15 to handle the expected increase in enrollment by that time.

She noted that the district now has an estimated enrollment of 16,800 students, up 600 over last year. New home construction is almost non-existent in the district, but she said the increase is being caused by children entering the schools from the existing homes occupied by young families.

"Some people have said we're using scare tactics, but these are no scare tactics. These are actual numbers," she said.

Johnson added that the plan proposed by the administration is to re-open East View in Oswego as an elementary school next year.

They also plan to redraw the boundaries for all elementary schools to allow them to have three full-day kindergarten centers in place of the present one at Southbury Elementary School in Oswego.

She said the locations for each center have not yet been decided. They probably would still have to turn some people away who want the full-day classes because of large demand and a shortage of space at the three centers.

One parent asked if they would still need two more elementary schools if the board does not approve the full-day kindergarten program for the home schools. Johnson said they will still need the space because enrollment for this year is already 3.5 percent higher than last year.

The two new elementary schools would open in the 2013-14 school year with full-day kindergarten being offered in all home schools to every student who wanted the full-day classes. Those wanting half-day classes would have to attend one of the three centers which would then be used only for half-day sessions, Johnson said.



Enrollment growth key to
need for third high school

She noted that they need a third high school to keep up with growth. Oswego East High School is overcrowded in common areas such as the cafeteria and locker rooms. She said OEHS and Oswego High each have a 2,400 student capacity but are expected to reach 2,500 each in two years.

The district purchased land on Ill. Route 126 as a possible site for the third high school, but it has problems with utilities not being close by so officials have been considering finding another site, she said. This land could still be used for other buildings such as an elementary-junior high site, so it most likely would not be sold, Johnson said.

This site would serve the area officials expect to be developed next which is in the Plainfield and Joliet areas of the district. Johnson noted that some residential building permits have been issued there recently for new homes.

She said the money for new schools would come from the $450 million general obligation referendum approved by voters in November 2006. She said there are enough funds in the issue to do all that they are recommending and still have additional bonding power because they are not recommending building all the schools suggested in the original referendum.

At the Jan. 11 board meeting, Doug Gallois, executive director of construction said they had sold $166,193,396 in bonds leaving the district with the authority to sell another $283,806,605.

Johnson told one parent that the district can sell bonds from the original issue until 2011. Any bonds not sold by that time would be lost.

However, Johnson said the district does not have the actual money.

"Some people thought we had the money and that the board had approved building the third high school, but this was not so. The people voted on giving the board the ability to issue bonds for new buildings but construction of a third high school was not approved," she said, adding that it still requires approval by board vote.

She said several options would be presented to the board in the plan.

They include putting overflow students into the present two high schools, which would result in larger class sizes. Other options included having split shifts in the high schools, using trailers or portable classrooms or adding onto both high schools as a temporary solution. The district could also decide to build a third high school.

She said it's up to the people to let the board know which option they favor.

"It would cost $40 to $50 million to build space for an additional 600 students in each school but that would be a temporary solution because we're still going to go beyond that enrollment. Once you reach the additional 600 students in each school, and you've passed the deadline for selling bonds, what do you do? You still have the problem," she said.

Portables could cost $100,000 each she said and students have to go outside between the school and these rooms.

She said building a freshman center has been suggested as a solution, and added that they would need one for each high school to have equity. Two new buildings would be an additional expense and they would only be a Band-Aid to solving the problem, she added.

An additional cost to resolve the high school problem would be about $2 million per year in operating funds for teachers, support staff and materials, regardless of which alternate the board chooses, she said.

"Whatever we do, the kids are coming and we're going to need staff to accommodate them wherever they are," she said.

She noted that they would even need additional administrators in the present high schools if they went to a split shift to serve the longer hours school would be in session.

When she said a third high school had been estimated to cost $105 million, a couple parents thought this was a low figure and asked whether it would be comparable to OEHS.

One parent said they should build whatever they need, which he said should include a swimming pool.

The proposed design included a pool, but after discussion about the cost earlier this year, board members considered dropping the pool which had been estimated last April to cost $6 million.

Johnson said $105 million is a "very economical" cost for a new high school. "The board has asked us to be very fiscally responsible, but if you want more, let the board know. I can design whatever the community wants in a high school. It will be here for 50 years or more and if you think we should not scrimp costs, the board should know that," she said.



Official: Board hearing
only from opponents

Johnson said the board has been hearing only from residents who are opposed to building a third high school or spending any additional money.

One parent who said he works in a high school, said realtors are always interested in what high school district a home is in when they show it. Having higher taxes for better high schools is a negative compared to the benefits, he said, adding that trailers at high schools will bring property values down because people will not locate here.

Johnson said the estimated increase in property taxes for the third high school would be $64 per year over ten years for a $200,000 home.

She said the plan being proposed by the administration is that Murphy Junior High would be used for high school freshmen in 2012-13, for freshmen and sophomores in 2013-14, and as a regular junior high (grades 6-8) for the 2014-15 school year when the new third high school would open with freshmen, sophomores and juniors. The following year it would serve all four high school grades.

One parent asked if building larger high schools might be a solution. Johnson said the personal atmosphere begins to change when high school enrollments are 3,000 or larger.

Another parent asked about the need for a fourth high school. Johnson mentioned that this will be included in the administration's proposed ten year plan to be presented to the board next Monday.

The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the second floor Community Room of Oswego East High School, 1525 Harvey Road, Oswego.

Residents will be given time to make comments or ask questions before the presentation, but the policy has been that questions are not answered during the meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People of Oswego - wake the hell up-- go back and re check and reccheck again theprojections--- anyone notice a familiar name in here ? You should -- he came from 204 -- he pissed your money away now another community headed down the same path -
At the Jan. 11 board meeting, Doug Gallois, executive director of construction said they had sold $166,193,396 in bonds leaving the district with the authority to sell another $283,806,605.

[southsidesignmaker]

Doc,

Why would the good folks of Grande park want it any other way. Many similarities here, look at the low cost associated with each homeowner's actual cost. Look at the geographic location of this third high school, right in Grande Park's back yard. I can understand why these folks want a high school of their own after all they drive right past Plainfield North on their way to Oswego east.

I wonder if the middle school in Grande Park ever opened, if not maybe it could be used as freshman center.

[doctorwho]

Oct 8, 2010 9:33:42 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

Doc,

Why would the good folks of Grande park want it any other way. Many similarities here, look at the low cost associated with each homeowner's actual cost. Look at the geographic location of this third high school, right in Grande Park's back yard. I can understand why these folks want a high school of their own after all they drive right past Plainfield North on their way to Oswego east.

I wonder if the middle school in Grande Park ever opened, if not maybe it could be used as freshman center.

1/ I do not believe he mS is open- another reason to question the numbers up front

2/ Of course they want it that way- but like here- should they do it for one area when ALL areas have to pay for it and some like my area get potentially screwed over in the process ?

All I am saying is I'd want to see ALL the facts before one damn nickle was spent- which is what we should have done here..but didn't. Once you build it you are stuck for a long time with the financial obligation - make sure it is warranted. And when I see a name associated that was involved in the smoke and mirrors sales pitch here- I get worried.


Then if it is warranted go ahead- but make sure you take care of all the people, not just a few when you re do boundaries , and do not separate siblings etc. Have a plan..

[EagleDad]

Oct 8, 2010 8:17:54 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

People of Oswego - wake the hell up-- go back and re check and reccheck again theprojections--- anyone notice a familiar name in here ? You should -- he came from 204 -- he pissed your money away now another community headed down the same path -
At the Jan. 11 board meeting, Doug Gallois, executive director of construction said they had sold $166,193,396 in bonds leaving the district with the authority to sell another $283,806,605.

Am I right in that this is the Doug Gallois, currently is eligible for $160,586 annually in pension from D204 while making these decisions in addition to his D308 salary of $141,284 (in 2007, I'm sure he's probably approved a few nice raises for himself since then). Can/is he drawing a pension and a salary at the same time (dear god, tell me that is not allowed). If so, that's a Grand Total of $301,870 per year.

And people wonder why we have a Public employee salary/pension issue and need to revamp it as our state is going broke? Yes, people need to wake up.

FWIW, the Governor of Illinois made $177,500 in 2010. And I firmly believe that particular one was way over compensated and that we'll likely be paying his unemployment in a month ;-)

[doctorwho]

Oct 8, 2010 12:32:15 GMT -6 EagleDad said:

Oct 8, 2010 8:17:54 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

People of Oswego - wake the hell up-- go back and re check and reccheck again theprojections--- anyone notice a familiar name in here ? You should -- he came from 204 -- he pissed your money away now another community headed down the same path -
At the Jan. 11 board meeting, Doug Gallois, executive director of construction said they had sold $166,193,396 in bonds leaving the district with the authority to sell another $283,806,605.

Am I right in that this is the Doug Gallois, currently is eligible for $160,586 annually in pension from D204 while making these decisions in addition to his D308 salary of $141,284 (in 2007, I'm sure he's probably approved a few nice raises for himself since then). Can/is he drawing a pension and a salary at the same time (dear god, tell me that is not allowed). If so, that's a Grand Total of $301,870 per year.

And people wonder why we have a Public employee salary/pension issue and need to revamp it as our state is going broke? Yes, people need to wake up.

FWIW, the Governor of Illinois made $177,500 in 2010. And I firmly believe that particular one was way over compensated and that we'll likely be paying his unemployment in a month ;-)

that's why I highlighted it..makes my head hurt. People are ragging on CEO's ( and those comp packages should be)- but much closer to home are armies of situations just like this one- outrageous...and the bill belongs to Joe Taxpayer

[macrockett]

Oct 8, 2010 21:25:26 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Oct 8, 2010 12:32:15 GMT -6 EagleDad said:

Am I right in that this is the Doug Gallois, currently is eligible for $160,586 annually in pension from D204 while making these decisions in addition to his D308 salary of $141,284 (in 2007, I'm sure he's probably approved a few nice raises for himself since then). Can/is he drawing a pension and a salary at the same time (dear god, tell me that is not allowed). If so, that's a Grand Total of $301,870 per year.

And people wonder why we have a Public employee salary/pension issue and need to revamp it as our state is going broke? Yes, people need to wake up.

FWIW, the Governor of Illinois made $177,500 in 2010. And I firmly believe that particular one was way over compensated and that we'll likely be paying his unemployment in a month ;-)

that's why I highlighted it..makes my head hurt. People are ragging on CEO's ( and those comp packages should be)- but much closer to home are armies of situations just like this one- outrageous...and the bill belongs to Joe Taxpayer

Yes Doc, you can't have it both ways. One reason why I will never completely align myself with any group. In the end you will box yourself in and, very likely, become a hypocrite.

The pension mess is but one of many examples. How, on the one hand, you can criticize CEOs that make 400x what the average worker makes yet defend public employees able to retire in their 50s making 100k plus in annual pension benefits and with the likely possibility of double dipping in another government job...is beyond me. You could take this much further as well in discussing critical aid, to those with special needs, that gets cut because of the cost of those pensions.

Another current example is Jerry Brown acquiescing as a staff member of his campaign calls Whitman a whore. Gloria Steinem is left rationalizing his behavior. So what do you call a male who allegedly does a political quid pro quo? Like, say Pat Quinn...over and over... a good business man?

[EagleDad]

Oct 9, 2010 8:44:43 GMT -6 macrockett said:

So what do you call a male who allegedly does a political quid pro quo? Like, say Pat Quinn...over and over... a good business man?

I call Quinn "terrorist" (for his attempts to hijack education and special needs services to get his tax and spend 100%, then 66% - then 50% tax hike).

In a month I hope to call him something else - "former governor". Within a year after that I predict he will have another appellation - "inmate".

[macrockett]

The argument is made that we had prosperity in years past when marginal rates were as high as 90%. Take the year 1956, hard to argue that isn't true. There, according to Santelli in the video clip, the top marginal rate was for incomes of $450k and higher.

However, comparing 1956 to 2010, in arguing that 39% rates on incomes of $250k and above is comparable is ridiculous. In today's dollars, that $450k would amount to incomes over $3.2 million.

www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1610479904&play=1

[southsidesignmaker]

Good old American metal.... Coming back!

www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101011/RETAIL03/101019965/1147

[macrockett]

www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1610662277&play=1

www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/events/Oct8Webcast_GlobalAging.pdf

[macrockett]

Oct 11, 2010 20:02:27 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

Good old American metal.... Coming back!

www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101011/RETAIL03/101019965/1147

All they had to do was build quality cars, that looked good, and sold at a competitive price and no one would have left...

[doctorwho]

Oct 11, 2010 20:02:27 GMT -6 southsidesignmaker said:

Good old American metal.... Coming back!

www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101011/RETAIL03/101019965/1147

I am still waiting before I re invest- was burned too many times.
Also article fails to mention Buick needs to lower it average age demographic from damn near 70 to something less than that to sustain growth...


and I found this statement to be a little presumptuous
"
A lot of us were old Pontiac dealers, and we now have to learn how to handle the Lexus, Ritz-Carlton, Cadillac, Mercedes kind of crowd.”

Really ? Of course they are government owned now and our White House is the expert and class warfare type comments.

[southsidesignmaker]

To Counter Currency Manipulation: Rally Some Allies
Leo Gerard's picture

By Leo Gerard

October 10, 2010 - 10:56am ET

www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104010/counter-currency-manipulation-rally-some-allies

Japan, no economic small fry, challenged China last month. The conclusion of the dispute is a cautionary tale for countries confronting China about currency manipulation.

In September, Japan seized a Chinese trawler captain after his boat collided with two Japanese Coast Guard ships near some East China Sea islands claimed by both countries.

Immediately afterward, China “coincidentally” detained four Japanese employees of Fujita Corp., charging them with filming in a restricted military area. When Japan proposed a prisoner swap, China upped the ante instead -- halting shipments of rare earth minerals to Japan. China controls 93 percent of the world’s rare earths, which are minerals essential for manufacturing high-tech and energy-efficient products, from cell phones to wind turbines.

Japan caved, releasing the Chinese captain unconditionally. Suddenly, China rescinded its restriction on rare earth exports to Japan and released three of the four imprisoned Japanese nationals, ending the dispute one captive ahead of Japan.

This incident confirmed China as a burly international tyrant. The caution for countries attempting to negotiate with China is to avoid Japan's mistake, which was single-handedly contesting the giant. For America, that means seeking an end to China's currency manipulation by simultaneously pursuing every option the United States has, including formally naming China a currency manipulator, imposing tariffs on imports from countries that undervalue currency and creating a community of allies to campaign together to combat the illegal trade practice.

Rallying partners should be reasonably easy, as Japan, Brazil and the European Union all have exhorted China in recent weeks to allow the value of its currency to freely float on international markets.

Like the United States, each has acted unilaterally. Last week, EU finance ministers confronted Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at a European-Asian economic summit in Brussels. Wen rejected their demands for China to speed appreciation of the yuan in relationship to the euro.

Also last week, Brazil doubled a tax it charges foreigners who purchase Brazilian bonds. This was an attempt to slow speculation that has increased the value of its currency, the real, by 39 percent against the dollar over the past 22 months.

A day later, Japan announced it would lower its benchmark interest rate and purchase $60 billion in government bonds and securities, both actions designed to lower the value of the yen, which would cheapen its exports.

The Swiss tried intervening in the market in 2009 to hold down the value of its currency, the franc, but failed. Singapore, Thailand, India and Canada have considered it.

So far, America has just attempted to persuade China to stop undervaluing the yuan – a practice that artificially suppresses the price of Chinese exports while at the same time artificially raising the price of imports into China from America and other nations. China’s deliberate currency undervaluation accounts for a significant part of America’s massive trade deficit with China.

Last spring, the United States asked China politely to allow the value of its currency to float up. As the United States awaited China’s answer, the U.S. Treasury delayed issuing its semi-annual foreign exchange report in which it could name China as a currency manipulator, then initiate a formal response.

China replied June 19 that it would allow the yuan to float on international currency markets. Treasury then released its report – which, no surprise, failed to list China as a currency manipulator. Since China’s announcement, the yuan has increased in value less than two percent – this for a currency believed by many economists, including the conservative C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, to be undervalued between 25 and 40 percent.

Annoyed with China’s failure to keep its pledge and angry over unfair trade gutting 2 million jobs from the body of the American economy over the past decade, Congress reacted just before its recess. With massive bi-partisan support, the House passed a bill that would allow the Commerce Department to impose tariffs on imports to counter the effects of currency manipulation. If passed by the Senate and signed by President Obama, it would expand the definition of improper government subsidies to include manipulation of currency to gain trade advantages.

Afterward, just nine days before the next Treasury report on currency manipulation is due on Oct. 15, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in a speech at the Brookings Institution, offered thinly veiled criticism of China’s persistent manipulation:

“When large economies with undervalued exchange rates act to keep the currency from appreciating, that encourages other countries to do the same. . . This sets off a dangerous dynamic.”

In rebuffing the European Union’s request for revaluing, the Chinese prime minister claimed allowing the yuan to appreciate too quickly would bankrupt Chinese factories as their prices rose to uncompetitive levels, and the resulting exodus of unemployed workers to the countryside would provoke social unrest.

No one wants that. Workers everywhere applaud the rise of millions of Chinese citizens out of abject poverty. But increasing the value of the yuan will benefit Chinese workers at the same time as it begins to balance currencies worldwide. An appreciated yuan effectively increases Chinese workers’ wages.

By deliberately undervaluing its currency, the government of China is waging a stealth trade war against the rest of the world. Independently, the United States must protect its economy, but to reign in this international outlaw, America also must secure the help of a posse.




______________________________________________________________________________________________


Oh no I guess there is a possibility of paying a few more shillings when shopping at Stalllmart / Chinamart.