patrick.net

azrob--
I get what you are saying, but I guess I'd say that if the US T-Bill rates rost because of unsystematic risk--that is the chances of the US defaulting--instead of systematic risk that affects all assets, then I'd say we're in uncharted territory. I see no reason why that would affect the rate that a prime borrower would receive.

Zippy--

And as to the risk/reward--if that were to happen, wouldn't it imply that a prime borrower would be less risky than the government?

People can certainly disagree about the timing of the recovery.
But many seem to ignore the improving data, and suggest that a recovery is not going to happen. Or that the improving news is artificial. Experienced investors have different view, and have collectively bet on the recovery. That is why the stock market is up about 70% from the bottom a year ago. And why investors are buying homes to rent or resell. Looking back at the last 12 months, I am very glad that I did bet on the recovery.

The data suggests that the recession ended last year.
There is a pattern/sequence to economic cycles.
The current recovery fits that pattern.

Here is where we are recently:

GDP is up.
Consumer spending is up.
Profits are up.
Home sales are up.
Hours worked are up.

It will take some time before most people really feel the change, but the cycle has turned.

Are we seeing companies announcing massive layoffs like we did in 2008/2009?
I still think we need to go through a 'right sizing' exercise at the federal, state, and local levels of government before we get through this.
"These layoffs and service cuts I have proposed will be severe and they will be painful," Villaraigosa said in Tuesday's State of the City address... The budget proposal for the 2010-2011 fiscal year calls for "initiating layoffs of more than 800 employees" and reduces the number of full-time employees by some 3,300 when compared to year-ago levels.
As you said: It’s hard firing someone, but when everyone has to do lay offs, it’s a lot easier. Double that for government employees.

Keep your eye on the Fed’s Z1.
I've never looked the Z1 (PDF alert) data before. I'm assuming where we see negative numbers is debt repudiation. We're slowly ridding ourselves of that stifling private debt -- one mortgage and credit card at a time.

@justme

Lots of companies are turning profits.
Intel, Amazon, Apple.. in fact I don't think I've seen anyone reporting a large negative balance in the last while, or in some way not reporting a positive uptick from last years sales. I use GE because it's a big conglomerate.

@ebguy
I can agree to that. In a way the government keeps things from totally sinking during these times, eg stimulus packages, spending and creating larger deficits. While it's scary for us to watch it grow, its economic necessity to keep the country moving. It's always worked in the past, and appears to have worked decently well this time too.

What can I say? Someone sighted that experienced workforce will get opportunities before new grads...
Lets be careful there..
Some industries, think otherwise, they would rather higher a new grad or perhaps two, and rip the benefits.
One hand they are getting 4 hands for the price of one, and more likely someone who is trainable, and can be put through the growth chain. That someone that if they are forced to lay off again, would not cost them as much, or perhaps nothing as they would not have 18mo of work experience. Someone who listens and much easier can get molded into what they need... No organization wants to be top heavy, you need the working - bees, new grads are one among best. You can cherry pick them best on how eager they are, what they have achieved and how they want to continue achieving. They are not hung-up on office politics, and etc. Also they bring a valuable asset - they are Generation Y, who are constantly on online, and great at new era communication, collaboration and ways of doing things differently. They are taught to work in teams, and depend on one another.

Some industries cannot afford to take the risk of taking a new grad, but then they turn to those who have just 3-4 years of experience, someone that is still the working bee, yet does not cost a fortune.
The most challenging time is for those who are 8-10years into their careers - namely last portion of gen X.

Is it going up?
- Here a few I bid or seriously considered bidding on.

Fremont. Priced at 495K. Sold a week ago for 515K.
Fremont. Priced at 499K. One across the street from above, placed 3 days ago.
Fremont. Priced at 500K. Sold at 530K
Fremont. Priced at 409K. Sold for 479K
Fremont. Priced at 430K. Sold for 500K Next to the one above, on the market right after sale of previous one.

It makes sense. If one sold for X, then next will be placed for X+Y
Are there still places where bids come under asking? Or those get thrown out by the Listing Agent?

EBGuy says

I’ve never looked the Z1 (PDF alert) data before. I’m assuming where we see negative numbers is debt repudiation.

Not necessarily. It's also just paying off of debt that was previously created. Debt inflation in the private sector leads to increased aggregate demand, and is almost always associated with economic booms. Debt deflation is just the reverse.

CBETA says

Is it going up?
- Here a few I bid or seriously considered bidding on.

CBETA, that is evidence of sellers pricing to sell, not prices going up.

@cbeta

I agree with what you're saying about grads. But in general someone with a couple of years of experience, or even 6 months or a year, is better than a grad with non, and costs roughly the same.

We're at a high enough unemployment rate now, that the best will be cherry picked for sure, and I'm betting 1-4 years experience is a pretty good area to do that, and will undermine grads abilities to pick up good positions.

Yes, a reduction in profit is not the same as a loss. A reduction in profit means you made less money than in a previous quarter or year. In this case they still earned $600MM. A loss means you LOST money. That’s a BIG difference.

Perhaps the BIGGER more important thing to take note of is that GE was a recipient of big bailout funds, and it's still reporting a loss. Anyway, let's not get overly pedantic about the difference between losses versus drops in profits. The original point was that they anticipate cuts, which doesn't jibe with some of the recovery cheerleaders on here.

Austinhousingbubble says

Perhaps the BIGGER more important thing to take note of is that GE was a recipient of big bailout funds, and it’s still reporting a loss. Anyway, let’s not get overly pedantic about the difference between losses versus drops in profits. The original point was that they anticipate cuts, which doesn’t jibe with some of the recovery cheerleaders on here

Let's not get overly pedantic? You don't think it's worth noting that GE actually made $600 Million instead of losing money? Once again, it's not a loss. Not even close to a loss. $600MM away from a loss.

And like I said earlier, most companies plan on hiring this year.

Here are some things to remember, like tatup70 said, GE made a profit, it didn’t lose money.

My point was that they aren't doing as swimmingly as was put forth. They had drops in their profit earnings, and will look to make cuts to appease shareholders. Guess where those cuts start? Hint: usually around the neckline. The only reason their profits aren't as far down in the shitter as they were in '08 is thanks to your tax dollars. Yes, GE was a bailout recipient. Too big to fail. So, yes -- let's all rejoice.

A company making large profits isn’t laying off huge numbers.

Too vague. To which specific company do you refer? If you insist of making sweeping definitive statements, I want examples and numbers. Opinion is not data!

Normally they do about 10%, unless they’re heading out the door. They do about 10% to clean up the riff-raff that has managed to make it into the company.

Have you ever worked in human resources or in any kind of hire/fire capacity? I do not get that impression.

It’s hard firing someone, but when everyone has to do lay offs, it’s a lot easier.

No, it isn't, particularly not in right-to-work states, which is a huge chunk of the country (mostly in the South.)

A good chunk is everyone going through their rosters and dumping crap.

So, in your immodest estimation, a large percentage of the unemployed are either so much riff-raff or crap.

I’ve heard of stories where people got laid off in the middle of dept that wasn’t really effected, like 1 in 40 people. Think about every job you’ve been in, and how many “incompetents” where around you, often these are the only times to get rid of those people, under the guise of economic problems.

Let's quit dicking up the facts with personal assertions and anecdotes. The idea that only incompetents are let go is just plainly crass. I do, however, agree that economic woe is often a pretext for letting go of people, but the reality is avarice, not tidying up the rosters. The C-level executives or shareholders are howling for fatter quarterly earnings rather than longer term health, and the easiest way to fatten up the bottom line.

Managers don’t like firing because a fired employee is a bad mark on their record. They hired them, they needed them, and now they’re firing them. They did a bad job. Some have no issues, but lots do!

With all due respect, "lots do" is not a very scientific metric. Look, it's a piece of piss to fire someone and even easier to hire someone to replace them. It's basically bargain shopping, but with people. Incompetence usually thrives because the flunkies are cheaper to pay, or they're a product of nepotism, but definitely not because it's just so hard to dislodge them. I read recently in Florida where they're axing people based upon flimsy ass premises such as misuse of company property (use of phone for personal purposes, etc) so that the freshly unemployed are ineligible for unemployment benefits. Incidentally, this also leaves them off the BLS rosters.

Threats are great, but how many are followed through on? Not many. Lots of useless managers use threats to get people to work harder. If you see the manager mad and making threats he’s not worried. If you see him suddenly trying to do peoples work, and staying 12 hours to finish stuff up, you know he’s probably not lying. There is a big difference between being a tyrant and using this economy to push people, and to actually being in a position where bad things will happen.

This is just, like, your opinion, man. Anecdotal evidence is not very useful. Besides, I think you're wrong based upon my experiences and the experiences of colleagues.

As far as replacing employees for “cheaper” employees, very few would do that. VERY few. Here are some reasons:

You are kidding. On some level, replacing expensive employees with a younger, cheaper workforce is an ages old phenomenon. It's part of natural attrition, however, this is a Damocles sword dangling over an increasingly broad chunk of the workforce. Just for one, labor arbitrage is an indisputable reality that leaves the majority of the American workforce increasingly vulnerable. Contracts negotiated by employees today are ones that their fathers would have laughed at, (adjusted for inflation). Do you think that the broader trend of outsourcing somehow leaves people immune to further vulnerabilities in the future? Just look at all the 'permanent' temp workers and staff augs that make up IT. This is a model being embraced by other sectors of industry, but it is not a good bellwether for the man-in-the-street going forward.

If you’re a small company, like most companies in the US are, like you pointed out, which I agree with, then chances are your employees are much more important to you than a few dollars. It’s hard hiring good people you get along with — that is important. The #1 reason for being fired is because people don’t get along with you, not because you’re incompetent. So firing someone because you can get someone for 20% or 30% cheaper isn’t wise. Your new employee will be grateful to have a job, but will quickly be demoralized by the fact that they sold out and took a low paying job. Reason #2 is that it is very expensive to hire and fire someone. You’ve either got overlap, or you fire and start looking to replace. They need to hire, they need to screen, they need to train. While they do all this, there are often 2 people involved. One competent, and one new guy. You can’t expect competent person to run at full speed, so you lose him + the new guy isn’t running at full speed. In the bay area, it costs $25,000 to replace an employee. If you hire someone, and the economy recovers in say 1 year, or 2 years, what are the chances you’re going to “keep” those savings you’re currently getting? Do you think you can hire someone for 50% or less? Most likely 20-30% less. 20-30% less over a year around here might be 25,000. But you’ve got a new guy, you’ve got demoralized employees, and you’ve got employees that will jump ship at the first chance they can for hirer pay. You might HEAR lots about *ONE* company that did this, but the majority know better. They aren’t going to do this.

Employees at GE are probably feeling pretty secure

I actually know two. I'll ask them and get back.

— they are making money. If I was in a money making company, that had just killed the riff-raff, I would feel pretty confident.

I really can't get over how strangely and comically convinced you are that everyone who's been laid of is just a walking pile of shit that were only employed out of mercy. In your haste to make a point, you have made a very ugly and totally false generalization.

Now small companies do make up most of America, and I agree with that. It’s hard to gauge how they’re truly doing because many of them don’t make massive profits, so when they start dwindling at all, they hurt. Owning a company is pretty stressful as it is, so regardless of where the economy is going, they will be stressed out. My main point is that a good part of the economy is decently secure. While others might be teetering, most aren’t. The country has laid off a lot of people, our unemployment numbers are high, but the people working aren’t going anywhere. Those companies are “stable” now, they’ve cut the riff raff for sure, and cut many good employees too (riff raff is just the odd person around the company) most of the lay offs come from specific areas and don’t fit into this category, but riff raff can add up to a decent number in the lay offs, and they are just dead weight so cutting them is returning 100% salary back to the company with 0% loss

.

Now don’t get me wrong, we’re not in good shape here. We might take a long time to put those unemployed back to work.

Longer than you either seem aware of or willing to consider: According to President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, even at the pre-recession job creation rate of 157,000 per month, it would take SIX YEARS to recover the jobs that have been lost, add jobs for new workers entering the labor force, and bring the unemployment rate down to 5%.

But have we hit the bottom? Most likely. Companies are stable, they’ve got profits coming in, they’re doing OK. Not great, they just aren’t in a position where they might topple over.

You're leaving out a BIG factor in why they're doing 'OK' -- it's because they've been gradually cutting staff!

They aren’t going to do another round of large lay offs, because that has been done. Layoffs need to be done all at once, to keep morale up. Tanking economy + low low morale = SUPER bad situation.

A very sanguine assumption. I know of one colleague who's company was just acquired, and there will be the usual redundancies (read: layoffs!) starting next quarter, as well as another colleague who's company is going IPO and are presently looking to reduce salaries or layoff some staff in order to get the books in shape. I don't know of anyone personally who hasn't seen diminishing returns this year and last, and that aren't expecting more of the same going ahead.

Outsourcing is no “miracle” cure either. No matter what you think, it’s not. I’ve been in the bay area, where out sourcing cost more than hiring locals in the end because of all the extra costs. They are all contractors, and it’s hard to setup shop in India for programmers, so they all come from these outsourcing houses which employee the people and you pay them. So imagine hiring cheap contractors as replacements for employees. They ended up costing about 65K per year for QA people, after EVERYTHING was said and done. We needed managers for them, we needed to fly them over to do some local work, we needed to fly over there, we lost a lot of work due to time differences, etc. The work out put was less than what we got here, they had masses of holidays, having all of our holidays, the Muslim holidays, and the Hindu holidays off in general. Outsourcing DOES work if you get enough people. They flip positions *all* the time, they’re mercenaries over there and wages are going “crazy”.

Crazy is right. The average annual salary for skilled laborer in China is 183 USD. Meanwhile, world bank economists released numbers in 2008 citing the real income of the poorest 10 percent of China's 1.3 billion workers had actually fallen by 2.4 percent.

It used to be a good programmer made about 6K per year, now it’s like 20K per year. Add on “contractor” fees, shipping them around, and it ends up costing a lot more than that for us. Their wages are definitely taking off. Lots of competition over there.

In the end, we’re probably not headed for a fast and quick rebound.

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree on just about everything. We avoided a depression, this much I'll concede, but only just. However, as Niall Ferguson rather astutely illustrated, we traded a 1930's scenario for a 1970's scenario. Read: Stagflation. Lost decade, etc.

For the record, I would love to read real *solid* news regarding the economy, but the best news thus far seems gelatinous at best.

Not even close to a loss. $600MM away from a loss.

Look, the title of the article is: GE profit drops by nearly a third as it eyes cuts. It was a minor point to contrast the original poster who championed them in particular as some kind of beacon of hope. They are not, particularly because they are doing as well as they are doing in large part because they are *too big to fail* and received your taxpayer dollars to help them avoid losses. Now tell me, what the fuck does loving your country have to do with that?

Austinhousingbubble says

For the record, I would love to read real *solid* news regarding the economy, but the best news thus far seems gelatinous at best.

Before I go looking--what would you consider *solid* news?

GDP is up.

GDP based largely on consumer spending/debt

Consumer spending is up

Bankruptcy and consumer debt is also way up, savings rate is way down.

Profits are up.

Uneployment is still holding rather fast, too

Home sales are up.

They are down compared to '01 levels. Prices, meanwhile, are also down.

Hours worked are up.

Hours worked by less workforce.

Before I go looking–what would you consider *solid* news?

Something with bones in it.

Austinhousingbubble says

They are not, particularly because they are doing as well as they are doing in large part because they are *too big to fail* and received your taxpayer dollars to help them avoid losses. Now tell me, what the fuck does loving your country have to do with that?

Well, you are correct that they were a beneficiary of government assistance, but I think you mischaracterize what they received. They didn't receive any bailout money per se--instead they were allowed to borrow money at lower rates than they would have received without the government backing.

I'm not sure what you mean about loving your country...

Austinhousingbubble says

Something with bones in it.

OK, could you give me an example? I'm afraid I can't tell which news reports have bones and which don't in your mind...

And where do you see consumer debt is way up? Every stat I see shows the opposite.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/housedebt/default.htm

Well, you are correct that they were a beneficiary of government assistance, but I think you mischaracterize what they received. They didn’t receive any bailout money per se–instead they were allowed to borrow money at lower rates than they would have received without the government backing.

That can actually prove a juicier deal than a bailout.

I’m not sure what you mean about loving your country…

I guess I was referring to a different poster trilling about corporate profit margins and how it made their heart throb.

OK, could you give me an example? I’m afraid I can’t tell which news reports have bones and which don’t in your mind…

To my mind, any article that addresses a topic with an unbiased but skeptical position as its default starting point is one worth consideration.

Austinhousingbubble says

To my mind, any article that addresses a topic with an unbiased but skeptical position as its default starting point is one worth consideration.

OK--help me out here. I'd like to try to find some articles to convince you, but I fear that it will be a waste of time because no matter what I link to, you'll say that it is biased... If your mind is already made up, then I won't bother though.

And where do you see consumer debt is way up? Every stat I see shows the opposite.

I suspect these numbers might be skewed by all the strategic defaulters squatting in their homes and salting away their mortgage payments, sometimes up to three years. There's also been a lot of total or partial debt forgiveness on credit card balances. I certainly do not interpret the numbers as some epoch in consumer frugality.

OK–help me out here. I’d like to try to find some articles to convince you, but I fear that it will be a waste of time because no matter what I link to, you’ll say that it is biased… If your mind is already made up, then I won’t bother though.

I'm sorry if I seem overly stubborn. Frankly, I enjoy dialectic exchanges as much as the next slob.

The sum takeaway from what I've read and seen, (Ferguson, Roubini, Stiglitz, Shiller, Ritholtz, Shell et al), is that the least nightmarish scenario we can anticipate is that the economy is going to sputter along the trough line for the next 5 years at least. The thing that most worries me is that nothing has really changed at an official level when it comes to any of the most crucial underpinnings (financial/economic policy, employee rights/compensation, trade agreements/tariff law, housing subsidies, consumer protection, etc.).

Austin,

Since you refuse to accept facts that contradict your preconceived conclusions, I suggest we stop exchanging comments. I do not want to spend the time pointing out all of the errors in your comments.

That way you can continue to keep your view undisturbed.

And I will continue to make money betting on mine.

Zephyr -- thanks, but these are not my preconceived notions. They aren't even notions. Any skeptic should be at least wary of the anecdotal and hasty generalizations that pass for data on here. I'm sorry they are so offensive to your amen corner.

Suffice to say, if I could somehow bet against your assertions, I would, and I do not gamble.

Austin, You are already betting against recovery by doing nothing.

People who doubt the recovery have already missed out on a 70% rise in the stock market. And the upside has a long way to go. Real estate will follow suit after a slow and lagged recovery.

Being wrong costs lots of money either in buying at the top, or in failing to buy at the bottom. There is not much difference financially between losing 50% in a crash, and missing a 100% gain in a rising market.

As for anecdotal information, I agree with you. It can be very misleading. But I am not offended by your anecdotal generalizations. I just prefer good real information.

Austin, You are already betting against recovery by doing nothing.

Well, who said I'm doing nothing? None of my investments lost one cent of their value these last few years, even during the nadir of the meltdown. In fact, they've appreciated.

People who doubt the recovery have already missed out on a 70% rise in the stock market. And the upside has a long way to go. Real estate will follow suit after a slow and lagged recovery.

Only if we have a return to the free-money/lax lending paradigm we enjoyed during the run-up. Failing that, a total and permanent nationalization of the mortgage market. Who knows, maybe the genie really can fit back inside the bottle.

I just prefer good real information.

For what it's worth, what I posted was based upon stats or recent articles/books that I'd read. It's pretty rare that I ever say "everybody knows" or "loads of people will/wont be" or "that never/always happens."

Big applause for pretty much everything that Austinhousingbubble has had to say in this thread.

Austin,

If you don't believe we are in recovery, what are you investing in to match your outlook?

Have you outperformed the 70% gain of the stock market?

Does anyof this sound like a recovery? As if somehow we can expect 2006 prices is very foolish.

“While March’s big annual gain in the regional median tells us a lot about what’s changed in the market, it shouldn’t be viewed as evidence of surging home values,” said John Walsh, MDA DataQuick president. “It’s a statistical quirk. A variety of data indicate prices in many communities have more or less flattened out or risen modestly, while they remain soft in others. The Bay Area is still impacted more than a lot of other markets by the years-old credit crunch. It’s tougher to get the ‘jumbo’ mortgages and adjustable-rate financing that had long been staples there.”

“Looking ahead,” he continued, “stability in the housing market will rely more heavily on a strengthening economy. Government housing stimulus is fading, and there are threats from higher mortgage rates, more distressed properties hitting the market and continued job losses.”

Zephyr says

Many foolish people once believed that there would be no bust after the bubble.
There are many equally foolish people who now believe there will be no recovery from the bust.
Both groups are equally wrong. They just don’t understand the cycle.
I bear no ill will for either of these groups.
They harm only themselves.

Nope! the price drops we have seen is the recovery of the housing market back to supportable levels. Any thing above fundementaly supported market prices is all bubble. Take away the goverment intrusion (the last leg of our current bubble) out of the market, prices will adjust further down.

Zephyr says

Austin,
If you don’t believe we are in recovery, what are you investing in to match your outlook?
Have you outperformed the 70% gain of the stock market?

Are you serious? Yeah, I know you personally are the perfect market timer, given how you boasted earlier in this thread. I'm sure you sold at the top and then went all in again at the bottom. Congratulations.

But you are completely cherry picking the performance of the stock market. Try looking at 2, 5, or 10 year returns. The average investor would have been better off just letting their money ride in a CD.

I mean, guys, what's not to understand?

Investors have homes to sell for profit. Recovery, economy, different point of views, the whole truth, who cares those shit? They have to make people believe in it's going up stuff till they sell them off and walk away with money. It has to go up.

29% of home buyers in March were all cash buyers, and 1/3 of homes sold are distressed properties. Big percentage of those homes will be back on the market soon with inflated price tag. It has to go up, right?

The same goes to stock market too. I invested on the stock since last fall and getting pretty good profit. Why a bear like me who don't really believe in recovering now thingy invested on it? Becauset the stock market was not acting normal, it was mad. Of course, you bet, I am ready to pull myself out when real recovery comes and people are recovering from this madness.

Mark,

I am not cherry picking anything. Austin says there is no recovery yet. And he says that his investments have done fine. So what is he investing in that was better than betting on the recovery?

How has his view played out in the real world. If he believes what he says, then his investments would not have been bullish, and he has missed one of the best 12 months in history.

My statements about investing are truthful. The stock market has done very well during the times I have been in it, and I have avoided the declines. Perhaps I have just been continuously lucky. That is possible. But I have been studying the economy and investing for about 35 years. That is what I do. And my forecasts have been good enough to do very well as an investor.

seaside, Why would you pull out when the "real" recovery comes? That would be the best time to be in.

I agree that the stock market has been acting mad. The entire drop from about Dow 10,000 to 6,500 was a panic, pure madness. The bounceback to about 10,000 was just restoration of sanity. Beyond that it is a bet on economic recovery. A recovery is the natural pattern, and the macro data now fits with a recovery pattern. So the market goes higher. At some point it will be excessive. But we have not even reached normal trend line yet. We are in the process of reversion to the mean.

"The average investor would have been better off just letting their money ride in a CD."

That is true for the recent years. But only because the ending point is down from the 2007 peak. But if you had bought in steadily for many years you would be ahead. Your average cost would be below the current market level, plus you would have received about 2% per year in dividends.

I am not trying to convince anyone to invest in anything. Just explaining my view.

Nor am I a stock market enthusiast. I was a bear until the end of 2008 when I figured the market would soon bottom and there would be a strong bounce back. So I bought in to benefit from that. I expect the economy to continue to recover, so I expect the stock market to continue to be a good investment for a while - probably a few years. I continue to be bullish. At some point I will be a bear again.

The point is, GE is making money. They aren't losing it, they're making it. Profits aren't bad for them.

You seem to think laying off workers is a simple choice, and it can be done whenever, however often they want and without regard for any kind of morale. It doesn't work like that. If you work in a company that is constantly cutting people, then everything in that company goes to hell. Morale in a company is huge.

You may think firing someone is a simple task, but when you're working in a big outfit, firing someone means you hired incorrectly. So in other words, if you hired someone, you're an idiot who can't do their job. Would you go around saying I need people, but I do a really crappy job at hiring them? No. A right to fire, doesn't mean you can fire. Some managers can't get rid of people because they lose the position. Some managers won't fire because it makes them look bad. Some don't like to fire because there are friendships involved now. Morale *IS* a huge factor in any company. If you don't understand that, I'm not sure where you've been working. If you're in business and morale sucks, you're in trouble. No matter how great your product is, or how well you're doing, you're heading down. Companies offer up incentives to keep employees happy, not just a salary, but other incentives. Unless you're in a job that can be replaced by any idiot, you're company has an incentive to keep you happy.

After lay offs, do you see companies making grand announcements saying, shape up, or we'll have another round! This won't be the last, unless we see every one of you in here for 15 minutes. Or how about "We've let go of the minimum possible... hopefully we won't have to do it again..." Companies aren't evil, they understand the necessity to keep employees happy. They reassure them that their jobs are safe. They try and help the employees who have been let go get new jobs and what not (sometimes for their own benefit) but if a company is seen dumping people on the curb, the remaining employees will start to look for jobs to ensure that doesn't happen to them.

Have you ever been into a business where the employee *REALLY* didn't give a shit either way? What did you do as a customer? How do you think it effected that company? Crappy employees take down a company pretty fast. Demoralized employees become crappy and stressed out.

I've been in companies where this has happened. I've watched management scramble to get morale back up. While I'm not responsible for directly hiring, I'm always able to discuss/interact/work with anyone at the top of any company I've worked at, including one 1000+ employee company.

You're right, often companies let go of a lot of good people, the riff raff is 2nd. But they ask for a riff raff list first. Then they work on which dept need to go, or entire offices. In which case it's no ones fault, it's just a segment of the business that has to go.

A company that was acquired, letting people go? That isn't from a recession, that is normal business practices.

A company that is going IPO? You don't sell off a company unless you're in a really good position. Raising capital during a recession? Going IPO isn't a trivial thing. People want to get hte most bang for the buck.

I'll flip back some questions at you. Which company is making large profits and letting people go en mass? Intel? Amd? GE? Which ones are you seeing that are doing well, and letting people go to keep the numbers up?

I'm going with basic news here. I'm not digging in deep to the numbers of each business, I'm only scanning the headlines looking for tell tale signs of problems. Lay off numbers are pretty big, and they hit the news headlines pretty quickly. I haven't seen any good lay off news for awhile now.

You seem to think companies are always doing evil intentionally. You're thinking they're firing people just to savin gee a few dollars, but neral thney're only doing it whe necessary. If you want to think "evil" here is a way to look at why they aren't going to further cut jobs. If they're manaking money now, d it's a recession and they fire a bunch of people they will have to pay severance, probably higher insurance premiums, deal with the fall out of the whole thing, lose customer confidence, lose investor confidence, but they'll save a few dollars. Their stock will definitely dip, why are they laying off more people than everyone else? BAIL on that stock!!
Even though they're going to make an extra 5, 10 or 15% profit because they have lower labor costs. Investors are spooked, customers are spooked, the whole market is wondering what is going on. Why are they firing so many more people than others?! Now the recovery comes, and every other company doesn' t need to hire for a long time, because they've got lots of extra capacity. Every $ they make essentially is profit. Your company that slashed the work force to minimum needs to hire. Now they're making more money, but spending more. Their costs are going up, and the revenue numbers aren't as impressive as their competitors. Where are investors going to head to? The company that "must" know what it's doing, because they're making money without spending more? Or the company that needs to spend to make money?

In the end, they aren't going to let people go unless it's absolutely necessary. And it's only necessary at the beginning of a recession, when no one knows what is going to happen. Now that things have leveled off, We know now that the government is backing the banks. We know how easy/hard it is to get a loan, get capital to expand, etc. The dust has started to settle and these companies can make informed decisions. If they start letting more people go en mass, we'll know something is up. But I really doubt we're going to see big announcements from GE, Intel, Apply, Amazon, or any other company that they're letting people go. It's not in their best interest to do that.