extent of firm cuts

Discussion in 'Economics' started by morganist, Jul 21, 2009.

  1. How is this news to you, if I may ask?

    People have been talking about the phenomenon for months now, mostly in the context of the reduction in the 'Average Weekly Hours' figure that's published by the BLS.
  2. And this is in Britain, which has a population 1/5 the size of the U.S.;

    "According to the ONS, in the three months to May, 927,000 people said they were being forced to work part-time because they cannot find a full-time job.

    This is an increase of more than a third on a year ago and represents the highest number since the ONS started gathering the data back in 1992."

    In the U.S., with its flexible labor regulations and weaker unions than the U.K., you can bank it that this number in absolute and proportionate terms is much, much higher...10 million wouldn't surprise me.

    All these earnings reports that are "beating" are doing so (the ones that aren't fudged radically, such as the financials, at any rate) by cutting every cost under the fluorescent office lights, including the number of light bulbs being used, not based on growth in revenue, sales or margins (all three are shrinking with few exceptions).

    Cutting costs is the only way the overwhelming majority of private firms can meet the (even) artificially reduced earnings and profit estimates (that very low bar) the rigged game of equity analysis has set for them.
  3. it's not news to me. it is public omission from a think tank that is saying something we have all known for a long time. it also tells the figures. plus people in other countries might be unaware of the situation and want to see the statistical analysis.
  4. But this is just a short summary of some UK figures. Furthermore, what on Earth are you referring to as a "think tank"? The ONS, the TUC or the online mag that published the article? How can you possibly call this 'an analysis'? It is just a summary of a well-known situation that doesn't offer any new insight or food for thought.

    I am disappointed, to be honest. I was expecting more insightful stuff from a macroeconomist.
  5. it was just a post with figures. not every one will want in depth reports they just want the figures in a brief rather than having to look through the how report.

    it was just meant as a general form of reference and if people were interested they could look it up in more depth.

    a lot of people post from abroad. why would they be interested in reading full the lengthy report on the matter. it would take forever to read each countries full economic data and report so you just use a brief.

    surely that is common sense no matter what you do.

    what do you do by the way?
  6. Absolutely agree, which is why I like to read short pieces that talk about data, but also provide insight and ideas...

    Let me give you an example of something I like:

    As to what I do, I am not sure how it's relevant to our conversation. Can you please tell me why you need to know?
  7. your a good poster i won't deny you that. i never said conversely. but you have to understand not every one here knows as much as you or has that much time. it was just a general post so that people could read it in a minute or two to confirm what they suspected and know the figures. some of the questions asked affirm that people do not have enough time to read long articles and sometimes have limits on their knowledge of economics.

    in relation to your occupation it interests me as you seem to view economists in negativity. your reaction makes me wonder is it not something you want to share why not.
  8. Far from it... I actually like and respect economists a lot more than other people you would encounter here. There's a thread here about economists and how they occasionally hold wrong views. I posted a comment there that sorta summarizes my views on the subject.

    As I mentioned, I don't have an issue with your posts. Some of them I might disagree with, but they're mostly thought-provoking. I didn't like this particular post, because there was nothing insightful in it, that's all. It was just a summary of the situation that people should be aware of already.
  9. fair enough. i will look for that post you made.
    #10     Jul 23, 2009