Archive for April 2nd, 2010

Bernanke puzzled by slow job growth … here’s why, Ben

April 2, 2010

It’s a mystery that has puzzled even U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: if the U.S. economy is growing rapidly, why isn’t it creating jobs?

The Fed and private economists are trying to answer the bigger question of why the labor market shed 8.4 million jobs during this recession. Although the downturn was the deepest since the Great Depression, the job losses were even more severe than most forecasters had predicted based on models that compare economic growth and employment.

The U.S. unemployment rate is at 9.7 percent, and the consensus view is that it will hold there. Why?

Bernanke offers two possible explanations: Either the recession was deeper than originally thought … or “productivity gains were greater than we thought they would be when firms were able to cut their work forces and still maintain output.”

Reuters, The Jobs Puzzle Bernanke Can’t Solve,
28 Mar 2010
 
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36031173

Well, I’ve got the answer for you Ben.

In fact, HomaFiles laid it out for you in July, 2009 (link to original post is below)

Here’s the encore presentation …

* * * * *

Why private sector jobs won’t be coming back any time soon
(Hint: it’s called passive aggressive resistance)

Team Obama thinks that it has corporate America right where it wants it –- under its thumb.

CEOs and Boards serve at the pleasure of the President, executive compensation is overseen by a Federal czar, product lines are green-dictated by Federal czars and Task Forces, contract law is suspended at will,  bankruptcy laws are changed on the fly — relegating secured creditors behind politically-favored unsecured ones, ineffective government agencies dictate to stumbling companies, unions are given jolts of legislated adrenalin.

The Administration has empowered itself to sort out good guys from bad guys, to pick marketplace winners and  losers, and to destine survivors and failures, Companies (and individuals) that question government policy are ridiculed, harassed, and punished; those that oppose the policies are squashed faster than decades-old GM or Chrysler dealers.

Corporate CEOs are quaking in there boots … or are they ?

Team Obama –- which consistently demonstrates uncanny business naiveté — may be underestimating a staple of organizational behavior: the power of passive aggressive resistance.  Rather than being openly insubordinate when confronted with undesirable tasks — and getting nailed by vindictive superiors –  employees and organizational units will often just procrastinate and work work inefficiently, in effect, pocket vetoing the unpopular orders from above.   In corporate jargon, it’scalled “slow rolling”.

Sure, corporate chieftains will tell President Obama what he wants to hear, and may even stand next to him on a stage in a faux show of support.  Why risk the rath of a Presidential punishment, especially when there are other ways to skin a cat?

Specifically, with respect to continuing job cuts and rising unemployment, here’s a theory of the case.

First, you can’t  let a good crisis go to waste, right?  Businesses always use tough economic times to clean house.   Fat builds in all organizations over time.  In “normal” times, it’s difficult to get rid of dead wood.  Employment laws –  perhaps well-intended originally –- serve to protect slackers by making it cumbersome and difficult to fire anybody.  When the economic tide rolls out, companies have the air cover they need to resize and purge under-performers en masse. The tendency is to cut deep.  If some muscle gets pared too, so be it.  It can be rehabilitated later.

In typical business cycles, employment is a so-called lagging indicator of an economic rebound.  That is, when the economy starts to recover, jobs are usually added back very slowly.  Why?  Because businesses have a renewed zeal for productivity, they recommit to keeping the fat from building up again, and they want to be sure that the signs of better economic times aren’t false positives.

Eventually, open positions are filled and capacity — human and physical –  is added to meet increasing demand.  It may take awhile, but the system eventually gets back in balance.

If the economy is bottoming out now -– as many experts assert –  employment would be expected to start rebounding in 2010.  But, it won’t. Why?

Because the rules of engagement have changed.  It has become far more costly and risky for companies to restore or enlarge their payrolls.

For openers, the minimum wage is scheduled to increase by over 10%, making entry level staffing more costly.  Then, there is the risk that “employer mandate” will force companies to expand health insurance coverage or pay fines – again, making labor most costly.  Then, there is the threat of “card check” legislation turbo-boosting  the mass inionization of U.S. businesses .  And now, there’s the evident risk that government will change rules and regulations on political whims, creating an unprecedented level of uncertainty.

The bottom line: businesses will resist government policies passive aggressively.  Fewer jobs will get added back than history would suggest, and those that get added back will materialize later than past patterns.  Businesses will add jobs as a last resort rather than trying to build capacity ahead of the economic growth curve.  Why should companies  increase their costs and  risks any more than is absolutely necessary ? Companies will continue to off-shore jobs, but will be more clever and clandestine about it, e.g. by vertically disintegrating and simply buying goods and services from 3rd parties.

Given the Administration’s anti-corporate rhetoric, actions, and proposed game-changing rules, I doubt that many CEOs will be taking on added costs and risks to boost the administration. More likely, they will let unemployment continue to creep up, and will slow roll the process of rehiring.  Corporate chieftains will sit back and watch the President squirm and spin his “4 million jobs – saved or created”.  As Rev. Wright would say “the chickens will have come home to roost”.  Passively aggressive  resistance at its very best.

Unfortunately, that means we’ll be seeing double digit unemployment for some time – at least through the 2010 Congressional elections.

https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/why-private-sector-jobs-wont-be-coming-back-any-time-soon/

* * * * *

HIGH ALERT: To the lifeboats … Guam may capsize!

April 2, 2010

I got a laugh out this one …

The pay-off comes right after the geography lesson.

Keep in mind: the questioner is a US Congressman ( YIPES !)

Ask yourself: How can the Admiral who is being questioned keep a straight face

Our government at work …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&feature=player_embedded

Hat tip to Tags for feeding:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/12301.html

A rose by any other name … Comcast rebrands as Xfinity

April 2, 2010

TakeAwayThe Comcast cable guy and his truck are getting a new look.

With a reputation for poor service and network problems decided a new name might make people forget.

We’ll see.

* * * * *

Excerpted from Philly.com, “Comcast unveils new brand name and logo,” By Bob Fernandez, February 4, 2010

Comcast  re-branded its TV, Internet, and telephone services as Xfinity  to signal to customers that this isn’t the same old company.

Comcast will remain as the corporate name, but the company will emphasize Xfinity in advertisements and on 24,000 service trucks and thousands of employee uniforms.

The new brand name first appeared in Comcast ads, around the time of the Winter Olympics, in Philadelphia and 10 other markets.

“This is a pretty big moment where we are upgrading every product area … the new name communicates Comcast’s constant product upgrades and innovation.”

The new brand name … will appear eventually as a logo on the Comcast TV guide and Web sites, and will also appear on customer bills under headings for different services …

Xfinity seems to position the company to compete with Verizon, which markets its TV and Internet services as FiOS, and AT&T, which uses U-verse …

This re-branding comes as Comcast has struggled to rebuild its reputation because of poor service and problems with its network that resulted in telephone and Internet outages. Its customer-satisfaction rating is among the lowest in the industry, but it has improved slightly in the last year.

Comcast spokeswoman said the re-branding was not an attempt to distance the service from the Comcast name. “This is about our product. It is about providing our customers with products that just keep getting better” …

Comcast tried to keep more customers happy by limiting its cable rate increases to 6.9 million subscribers in late 2009 compared with 16.2 million customers in the fourth quarter of 2008 …

Comcast has been on a tear by boosting its Internet speeds, offering more TV channels as a result of its digital transition, and is adding features to its new phone service …

Edit by TJS

* * * * *

Full Article
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/83522972.html

* * * * *