knowing that interest rates are low and will stay low for years is HUGE when it comes to business decisions.

any remotely reasonable economist (or businessman) will tell you that the primary issue facing our businesses these days is low demand, not "uncertainty".

they are a huge export market - if their economies tank than then buy fewer American goods. Simple as that.

yes, europe (as well as china, to a lesser extent) is a big source of uncertainty. i'm not saying uncertainty doesn't exist; it always does. and i've said that the problem was low demand, which is a function both of domestic problems (political and household) as well as global problems, europe obviously included.

but in terms of american politics, both sides seems to be leaving europe's problems to europe, so it's not really relevant. the republicans are not complaining about european uncertainty as a justification for throwing obama out.

a drop in European consumption will have a huge impact on American exports.

So... yeah...

268k in exports to the EU out of 1,480,430.0 total (2011, seasonally adjusted), that's 18% of our total exports (we also have a 100k/yr deficit with them). So 18% of 20% means 3.6% of our total production would be affected, and a downturn wouldn't be more than half of that so we're looking at less than a 2% impact... Now yes, those workers would displace and the ripples would be felt domestically, but that really can't be the reason that US employers aren't hiring. They aren't hiring because they don't need more workers to produce more goods because there isn't demand for those excess goods. Mainly because automation has displaced the need for their labor and the American worker is too productive forcing other workers out of the market (which in turn demolishes their buying power).

Low tech, high labor manufacturing is dead in America. It is now all high tech capital goods with a significantly smaller but high skilled work force. The day of a high school graduate supporting a family in a factory is pretty much gone.

i know full well how relevant it is to us employers. my company is mostly global and we're having a tough time closing deals in europe, and we'd hire more people if we could only close these pending deals.

but this is not the republican talking point. when they talk about "uncertainty", they're not talking about europe, and they're not blaming obama for europe's problems, nor are they calling for obama to solve europe's problems.

the "uncertainty" they're talking about centers around domestic tax and regulation policy, and, up until the recent supreme court decision, the uncertainty over whether or not employers would have to do anything regarding the health care act. all of which is also relevant, to some extent, to american businesses, but it's not business's biggest concern -- low demand is.

in any event, i would argue, notwithstanding what's going on in europe, the overall business "uncertainty" is rather low these days compared to most. the relative "certainty" includes low interest rates, little change in legislation out of washington, and low demand.

what's keeping business from expanding is the relative certainty that they can't boost sales because people can't buy more or pay more. it's not the uncertainty as to whether or not europe or any other market will buy more; they're pretty much sure they won't.

at least not in the near term.

They will hire when people are spending and they need more people to get product out.
The only uncertainty is when people will have money to spend. From what I see it isn't going to be anytime soon and if republicans take over you can pretty much resign yourself to the fact that this is going to get much worse.

...the fact that perhaps, Obama isn't the corporate puppet that many have made him out to be. Perhaps he doesn't always dance in perfect synchronization with the oligarchs. I submit GM as an example - one of the things he did when the government took them over was fire Rick Waggoner - I don't think that was lost on corporate board members or executives.

With two over-qualified, under employed sons in their mid 20's and fast approaching insurance drop-off.. I sure would like to see some MAJOR jobs bills get pushed out in a hurry.

Nothing will stimulate the economy faster than lots and lots of hiring and a reinvigorated union movement.

I am bemused by the fact that "stimulus" has become a dirty word in the beltway. It's like the "good" = "goo-goo" nomenclature.

CorpoMedia© has twisted the language in ways Orwell could barely glimpse.

It sure seems the investor and business community have a lot more faith in Obama (S&P 500 up 59% under Obama) than in Bush (S&P 500 dropped 37% under Bush.)

{#} U.S. Stock Market as measured by the S&P 500

# S&P 500: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC+Historical+Prices
# Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI+Historical+Prices
# Using the last closing before inauguration (G.W. Bush inaugurated noon Jan 20, 2001, Obama at noon, Jan 20, 2009)
. . # When Clinton left office and G.W. Bush took office, the S&P 500 was at 1343.
. . # When G.W. Bush left office and Obama took office, the S&P 500 was at 850.
. . # Thus under G.W. Bush, the S&P 500 dropped 37%, from 1343 to 850. While under Obama, it rose from 850 to 1355 as of Friday7/6/12 close, up 59%.

(I use the S&P 500 rather than the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) because it is a much broader index of U.S. stocks, containing about 75% of the total U.S. stock market by capitalization. I would rather use the Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index (^DWC) but its history extends only back to 2004).

If you want the Dow Jones Industrials Average (an unweighted average of 30 stocks), ticker ^DJI , it is:
Dow Jones Industrial Average: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI+Historical+Prices
Jan 19, 2001 10,587 Last Dow close under Clinton
Jan 16, 2009 8,281 Last Dow close under Bush (a 22% decline under Bush)
Jul 6, 2012 12,772 Latest Dow close as of this posting (a 54% increase under Obama)

if it weren't for the Dems pushing job destroying policy shoulder to shoulder with them. TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a great example, as is NAFTA and GATT and other job destroying trade policy. I would epect shit like that from the rethugs....it is painful that Dems are on board and pushing. This is the most disturbing description of a Democratically supported policy I may have ever read..

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive new international trade pact being pushed by the U.S. government at the behest of transnational corporations."

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/trade-policies/tpp-potential-trade-policy-problems/

The Labor Party Is Dead..

We should have a moratorium on trade agreements.

Until we change it, it won't.

psst. [font size=1]He'll fire you anyway.

realize that a Romney administration will soon see a U3 unemployment rate of 20-25%, probably within 18 months of Romney's inauguration.

The resulting social unrest will make Occupy look like an afternoon tea party.

he would run as an Austrian but govern as a Keynesian. Granted, big finance, big oil and big defense would be the prime beneficiaries of his increased spending, but I have no doubt Republicans would drop their deficit fear mongering like a hot potato.

...hence the overreaction to #Occupy.

and wages are in the toilet...why change a thing, it's all working perfectly. For them.

The result of pure corporate fascism. Control of the masses through benefits and paychecks(liveable wage). It really is all about controlling the masses and really it's always been profit before people, it's just done now with openness and impunity thanks to Reagan.

It's time to take to the fucking streets.

What do you think #Occupy is about? As I see it, both...

It was well paying with excellent benefits but it sure isn't something I would have ever called a "good job."

It was miserable. Talk about being hot? It was a hundred degrees inside this factory during the coldest winter months so you can imagine what it was like in the summer there. Noisy? Just like standing next to a freight train going by full out all day long.

That is why we used to need to hire a hundred employees to keep one of them through retirement.

Out of the 200 people who were hired on the same day I did only myself and one other person made it to retirement. Over half quit and walked out before lunch on the first day of work.

Don

some further conclusions from your experience(s). The younger cohort here would undoubtedly profit from reading of your experiences.

I'm certainly not saying that your job was easy--far from it! But I'm not sure that I see what you're getting at, or at least not how it pertains to the OP?

Lots of people are working similar jobs today for a far lower wage and with much worse benefits. Perhaps that's your point?

so to complain about it is really a cop-out.

2. CEOs get paid big money to deal with uncertainty. They're failing miserably. Let me give it a try. I'll work for 10% of what they get for 2 years, and if I can't do better, fire me.

was generated by the Frank Luntz propaganda machine. They never elaborate on what is uncertain, but most people just accept the propaganda.
They will feel certain when the Constitution is amended to read that the top 1% are exempt from all taxes and regulations, thus allowing them to enslave the general population and poison the environment without any responsibility.
When you own the megaphone and no one else has one you can say anything and it's accepted.
One thing that is certain is the Republicans take enormous bribe money from the wealthy elites to pass legislation that benefits the rich while blocking all legislation designed to help the working class. Corporate feudalism is not an American value.

so that excuse is not there.

Revenue per employee is currently very high, as are profits. 'Lean' is the new corporate religion. Fewer people are needed to meet existing demand.

With profits high even though demand is low, hiring will stagnate. Companies have no obligation to hire people out of a sense of social responsibility, and you would not invest your money in an enterprise that was going to fail by being unprofitable. Hiring will only resume when there is a good business case to do so, i.e.; stronger demand.

Of course, a lot of this is piss poor long-term strategy on the part of employers. It's poor practice to burn out employees through overwork. It's also poor thinking to continue to outsource and downsize when the long-term effect will be to reduce your customer base by eliminating people with disposable income. But each company thinks that it's someone else's problem, and they can only see the impact on this quarter's bottom line.

One solution that has been suggested that makes a lot of sense to me is to restructure preferred stock plans so that corporate officers' compensation is tied to long-term performance, not quarter to quarter results. For example, restricted stock could be vested over a 10 year period instead of vesting in six months to one year. Since this is where the vast majority of executive compensation comes from, it would encourage long-term planning over short-term results. It would encourage employee retention, since longer-term projects would be undertaken without fear of no immediate return.

Most business people would prefer the certainty of stable credit and steady payments from the government, whether they be to them, their suppliers, or their customers. Yet it was the House of Representatives, overly influenced by a lot of 2010 freshmen members from the Tea Party, that pushed the nation to the brink over and over again during the past two years.

Most of the beneficiaries are the large multinationals and not smaller local businesses who are screwed by the fact their customers are being screwed and they have less or no income to spend.

fuck their uncertainty. THERE IS NO CERTAINTY IN LIFE.

Always has been always will be.