lol i saved up for a number of yrs for that car, and was lucky i got to do some side jobs that helped me raise that cash

Your a good man. Ya got your age, mind, looks, and you are using it !

Alot of idiots born with a golden spoon in thar mouth couldn't wipe there little butts if they didn't have help.

Keep up the good work .

Just Sayen.

Frosty

Thanks

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American Airlines told its unions Wednesday it plans to cut 13,000 jobs from the staff of 88,000 at the nation's No. 3 airline.

The cuts will fall most heavily on the airline's maintenance operations, which will lose 4,600 jobs. More than 4,000 additional ground worker jobs will be eliminated, as will 2,300 flight attendant jobs.

oli,

We do not KNOW half of the stuff is going on ! We are like mushrooms keep us in the dark and feed us shit ! and for the those who do not think so , GTFOH!

Maybe if American Airlines provided decent service, they wouldn't be in such financial trouble. I was a victim of their "sick-out" back in 1999, and they were disgraceful the way they treated their customers. They refused to answer their phones, they directed passengers with canceled flights to other airports, only to have those flights canceled, and then they tried to refuse refunds. People have long memories (at least I do), and when you can fly to the same destination for less money and better service, then that's the airline that the consumer will choose.

I hate flying did it some but never liked it loved the bloody mary's service was great. But don't like the height's same as the Economy of this Country !

Yes, Frost we are the potential victims of airline cuts. How about cutting out some middle management. They are miserable pricks anyway.

A friend of mine has relatives who are electricians in power plants. Those plants are being held together with duct tape and twine. Why? Cost cutting. Next time there is a major blackout, don't wonder why.

Yepper thar ya go. There needs to be alot of cutting in alot of places. But we need some smart people in the right places to get it done. There has been a Black out in alot of heads for years ! How come we have some of the answers and the people making big don't seem to know but ask for more. Tell the rich to play with there little winners instead of loading there billfolds.

Save the time I know the answer so do the rest of working stiffs.

(Worth reading.)

How did the recession impact the income classes?



http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/02/02/the-struggling-middle-class/

dont listen to the republican spin machine

the private sector added 243,000 new jobs in january and unemployment decreased to 8.3% the lowest in 3 years!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/busine...-is-8-3.html?hp

What I posted wasn't GOP porn. And you're correct.

~I only post GOP porn if I want to ridicule it. Kinda like how Anne Coulter and other Neocons are now saying RomneyCare isn't Obamacare. Despite saying it was for several years.

^^^my comment wasnt referring to any of your posts just to the pro-GOP people on the forum, no worries.

The unemployment rate counts only people who don't have a job and are looking for one. When you account for the spread between the reported and implied unemployment having just soared to a fresh 30 year high of 3.2%, the real employment rate is over 11% and probably a lot higher.

The government tracks unemployed people who have given up looking for work in the past year. But if they were still job-hunting, but hadn't found work, the unemployment rate would have actually been 8.9 percent last month.

And concerning the markets recent "rally"--it's worth noting that the DOW was at 3,000 in 1990, meaning, the market has grown almost 300% in the past 20 years and about 200% more than it did in the entire previous century. The market will continue to grow exponentially just as the population and the business community needed to serve that population grows.

One should be cautious when considering unemployment rates as an indication of the Nation's economic strength. As Nitti points out, that rate only represents a certain type of calculation. Our Nation's economy has been evolving into a service economy for decades now and it is very sensitive to other variables. Also, companies are evolving also and their structural changes are having a large impact.

Nitti, Olivant -




http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Paper-Economy/2012/0203/Unemployment-rate-drops-to-8.3-percent

thanks for posting this up, i was going to respond and talk about all six measures (u1-u6) of unemployment but its been a crazy few days

It's just never a very accurate measurement of true joblessness. The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment through monthly household surveys called the Current Population Survey (CPS). But if you were unemployed last year and didn't fill out this particular survey, you wouldn't necessarily be included in this measurement. Of course not every household in the country can be counted, so the CPS is meant to be representative of the U.S. population. There are about 60,000 households in specific geographic areas in the U.S. used for this survey, which translates into approximately 110,000 individuals, according to the BLS.

Either way, this latest report is nothing to boast about considering unemployment has been above 8 percent 36 consecutive months for the first time since the Great Depression.

And that 8.3% doesn't accurately represent every demographic such as the youth group which is at 20% unemployment, another all time high.

There's nothing significant about 8%. Why not select 7% as a benchmark? Unemployment was in excess of 7% from mid-1980 through 1985 and hit a high of 10.8% in 1982.

8.3% unemployment and 243,000 (net?) jobs created is a pretty good sign. But there's nothing right wing or conspiratorial about criticizing those numbers, either. We need to keep creating 150,000 NET jobs per month for the foreseeable future to keep pace with where the levels should be as a percentage of GDP.

Hostess snack cakes recently filed for bankruptcy after decades of service, meaning twinkies and ding-dongs could be on the endangered snack list soon. The company said it "is not competitive, primarily due to legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules."

See, companies who don't make killer profits but just good old fashioned American goodness usually don't survive in an economy like this with higher taxes and government regulation. We eat Soviet made Gruel because that's whats practical!

The economic ideology proposed by some on the left is not focused on improving the economy today, but many years from now based on a rise of the lower classes predicated on social re distribution of wealth. I hear one of the feminazis on MSNBC point out that it's NOT "a SHINING city upon a hill", it's just a "city upon a hill."

That's what they want--a society where all of the grand and unique facets of life that people enjoy are watered down to better suit the whole and are replaced with standardized modern (i.e. strictly efficient-non grandiose) systems that don't produce great things in this country but things that are just good enough.

Yes, the oppresive corporate taxes, lowest in 40 something years and corporate profits are at record highs. Maybe poor Hostess died because most of their loyal customers finally died from all the cholesterol they injected themselves with those delicious snack cakes?

But removing politics and debate aside, my reaction to the news:

And for the record on Hostess, here's what the very liberal Wall Street Journal reported:





So how is this the government's fault? Seems like the same troubles many corporations have had for the last few decades: unions and those damn CBAs, labor costs (i.e. American workers, not 3rd world imports), pensions, debt (you know, paying with money you don't have*), and maybe even executive failure to deal with competition.

The government should've bailed them out. Twinkies are too tasty to let them fail.

*=Actually, corporations are like the governmentin that regard.

Well they mentioned 'medical benefit obligations' which I took to mean the impending universal health care and regulatory costs that will kill many small businesses. Plus an uncertain and pessimistic economic outlook with a high consumer price index and rising costs of commodities and services that kills small manufacturing firms like the ones that make our tasty treats.

What about these GAS prices ? When items are needed all over the nation and most of them are transported by truck ? And prices continue to rise this is not good at least in my old eyes.

Your kidding with this comment right? The WSJ is WIDELY known as a conservative newspaper, it is to conservatives what the NYTimes is to Liberals. I like/read both on a daily basis but we have to recognize when a spade is a spade and call it out.

They are widely known to support Reagan style supply-side economics and support of free markets.

"Perhaps it’s pure coincidence that a little over a week before readers go to the polls to decide the fate of Congress, the liberal Times and conservative Journal led with stories that just happen to paint their owners’ political foes as buying the election.

More disconcerting to those who look to the papers for supposedly unbiased news: The “fact” at the core of each story is at odds with the “fact” at the core of the other..."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilweinberg/2010/10/23/nyt-vs-wsj-liberal-bias-vs-conservative-bias/

actually the "medical benefit obligations" are in reference to the generous employee health and pension packages they had been offering to their employees.

Actually the company's been around since 1930 and never this affected by rising health care costs before so I'm gonna infer that's a function of the looming required individual mandate driving up prices and demand.

no, health care costs have been increasing more than double the rate of inflation for the past god knows how many yrs, you know how many comapnies have had to downsize/lay off people because of balloning health care costs? even the biggest/richest retailer in the world wal-mart is going to require/if not already employees to contribute to their health plans, a company cant really sustain cost of growth of 5+% every yr

a company is not going to go bankrupt over a law thats not even going to go into effect until 2014

"The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million residents (which includes 9.9 million non-citizens) or 16.7% of the population were uninsured in 2009.More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world,and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor. Although not all people are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care in the country.A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Spending

Again, the impending demand for future health care will increase the price of health coverage today as well as tomorrow. Increases in demand for a service produces higher costs that must be factored in to a company's future balance sheet. That's simple supply and demand.

And there are plenty of companies who've filed bankruptcy long before they've reached the breaking point. There are any number of advantages to filing bankruptcy as opposed to going under.