Thread: ADP reports 532,000 May job cuts

Interesting, they are off by over 10% and people can deduce that the economy is recovering.

New home sales rising...Must be your average joe buying new homes and not some rich shmuck profiting off of the lower prices. This is so deceptive it's not even funny.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Interesting, they are off by over 10% and people can deduce that the economy is recovering.

New home sales rising...Must be your average joe buying new homes and not some rich shmuck profiting off of the lower prices. This is so deceptive it's not even funny.

I think we need a Robin Hood, care to join me in a pair of tights?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Interesting, they are off by over 10% and people can deduce that the economy is recovering.

New home sales rising...Must be your average joe buying new homes and not some rich shmuck profiting off of the lower prices. This is so deceptive it's not even funny.

I think that is existing home sales, not new ones.
No one has the money or can't get money to build a new one.

Originally Posted by dg806

I think that is existing home sales, not new ones.
No one has the money or can't get money to build a new one.

Crazy, that's even worse.

Microsoft: Obama's tax plan may hurt U.S. jobs | Politics and Law - CNET News

Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer offered an unwelcome economics lesson to the Obama administration this week: Higher taxes have consequences that Washington policy-makers may not especially like.

Ballmer said Wednesday that if Congress enacts President Obama's plans to impose higher corporate taxes, a sensible thing for Microsoft to do would be to move jobs offshore.

"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said, according to Bloomberg News. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

Last month, the president announced a plan to rewrite tax law by preventing U.S.-based multinational companies from "deferring" and keeping profits offshore, which can lower their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax system is unusual because it taxes income that Microsoft and other companies make in other countries, even if they already paid foreign taxes on that income. That makes U.S.-based companies less competitive than, say, Irish firms that don't pay taxes on foreign income and aren't hit by double taxation; deferred taxation is a way to lessen the sting.

If deferred taxation is eliminated, it becomes more tempting for a company to move its headquarters from Seattle to Dublin. That's voting with your feet.

That's why business groups have opposed the president's plan. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it will "impede growth in the U.S. economy, (and) cause the loss of jobs." The National Foreign Trade Council called it "counterproductive."

Microsoft says it employs about 95,000 people worldwide, and about 56,500 in the United States.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Microsoft: Obama's tax plan may hurt U.S. jobs | Politics and Law - CNET News

Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer offered an unwelcome economics lesson to the Obama administration this week: Higher taxes have consequences that Washington policy-makers may not especially like.

Ballmer said Wednesday that if Congress enacts President Obama's plans to impose higher corporate taxes, a sensible thing for Microsoft to do would be to move jobs offshore.

"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said, according to Bloomberg News. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

Last month, the president announced a plan to rewrite tax law by preventing U.S.-based multinational companies from "deferring" and keeping profits offshore, which can lower their tax bills.

The current U.S. corporate tax system is unusual because it taxes income that Microsoft and other companies make in other countries, even if they already paid foreign taxes on that income. That makes U.S.-based companies less competitive than, say, Irish firms that don't pay taxes on foreign income and aren't hit by double taxation; deferred taxation is a way to lessen the sting.

If deferred taxation is eliminated, it becomes more tempting for a company to move its headquarters from Seattle to Dublin. That's voting with your feet.

That's why business groups have opposed the president's plan. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it will "impede growth in the U.S. economy, (and) cause the loss of jobs." The National Foreign Trade Council called it "counterproductive."

Microsoft says it employs about 95,000 people worldwide, and about 56,500 in the United States.

This should be it's own thread. Anyway, I agree with this, the loopholes need to be closed, and taxes should not be raised. If anything, they need to have a number cruncher figure out if they can even get away with a cut if the loopholes provide that much more revenue.

However, from a business standpoint, MS isn't going anywhere. These companies selling big ticket items cannot afford to move everything overseas. Sure, they save money on human capital and taxes, but in order for capitalism to work you need people who buy into it and those people need money. In the Phillipines, the last thing a citizen is going to do is buy a PC, he is going to buy food for his family. You take money away from an American citizen by moving a job overseas, and you have one less wasteful spender. Think about it, what about a computer is necessary for daily life? Not much, and someone with a better grasp on life realizes this and doesn't need one. Ireland...What is there like 4 million people, that's only 300 million less. Despite acting to the contrary, big business needs the consumer more than the consumer needs big business.

Originally Posted by dg806

No one has the money or can't get money to build a new one.

I am having a new house built right now!

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Crazy, that's even worse.

I talked to a developer in my office this morning. He said that the federal regulators would not let the banks lend money. Some even said that if they had 100% to put up front, they would loan the money. UMMMMMM, if I had 100%, why would I need a loan??
But Obama says that he is urging the banks to loan. But in the back roooms, they tell the federal regulators to tell the bank they can't loan the money. So where in the hell is the money the banks are getting, going??? Into hedge funds and stuff like crude to run the price up!!!!

Originally Posted by Prince

I am having a new house built right now!

You are lucky and one of few. I will point out that the guy I talked to was on the commercial side, so I don't know how that would translate into the residential side?

Originally Posted by dg806

I talked to a developer in my office this morning. He said that the federal regulators would not let the banks lend money. Some even said that if they had 100% to put up front, they would loan the money. UMMMMMM, if I had 100%, why would I need a loan??
But Obama says that he is urging the banks to loan. But in the back roooms, they tell the federal regulators to tell the bank they can't loan the money. So where in the hell is the money the banks are getting, going??? Into hedge funds and stuff like crude to run the price up!!!!

That doesn't surprise me in the least, although I don't know that I follow the conspiracy theory stuff. I don't believe they want money loaned out, although I easily got a good car loan with average credit.

Has anyone been paying attention to the auto industry? Apparently sales of fuel efficient cars are down and SUVs and larger vehicles is climbing again. We are a wasteful country that doesn't learn from our mistakes, we have a long ride ahead of us.

Tough Economic Times*Video

Originally Posted by dg806

You are lucky and one of few.

we're putting over 40% down and our credit scores are 800.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Has anyone been paying attention to the auto industry? Apparently sales of fuel efficient cars are down and SUVs and larger vehicles is climbing again. We are a wasteful country that doesn't learn from our mistakes, we have a long ride ahead of us.

What if people just like bigger cars? These "fuel efficient" cars might be that, but they sacrifice safety. I for one will be getting a big car when I have kids.

I know in my neck of the woods a lot of home purchases are the speculators again from foreclosures...the home gets sold and sits empty

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

That doesn't surprise me in the least, although I don't know that I follow the conspiracy theory stuff. I don't believe they want money loaned out, although I easily got a good car loan with average credit.

Has anyone been paying attention to the auto industry? Apparently sales of fuel efficient cars are down and SUVs and larger vehicles is climbing again. We are a wasteful country that doesn't learn from our mistakes, we have a long ride ahead of us.

I will admit I drive a big truck, but like Busy said, mostly for safety reasons. I got hit in a small catera and it was totalled with my kids in it. None of us were hurt, but I said never again, I'm driving something big. And I really don't drive that much either. Cost me too much. It is only 8 miles to work.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

What if people just like bigger cars? These "fuel efficient" cars might be that, but they sacrifice safety. I for one will be getting a big car when I have kids.

That's fine, but don't complain when the price of gas increases. Given the option, I think most would prefer a larger vehicle, but is it practical? Remember like 10 months ago when everyone was trying to dump their SUV because of the price of gas. The primary driving factor in the cost of gas is obviously supply/demand, if you are driving 4-5 miles at a time it's not a big deal, but I find it hypocritical when someone driving a vehicle that gets 15mpg complains about the cost of gas.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

That's fine, but don't complain when the price of gas increases. Given the option, I think most would prefer a larger vehicle, but is it practical? Remember like 10 months ago when everyone was trying to dump their SUV because of the price of gas. The primary driving factor in the cost of gas is obviously supply/demand, if you are driving 4-5 miles at a time it's not a big deal, but I find it hypocritical when someone driving a vehicle that gets 15mpg complains about the cost of gas.

I never said I didn't want alternative fuels for my larger car. I just said I don't like the government mandating smaller cars.

And I do believe gas could be a little cheaper if we would tap our own resources & don't implement the tragedy of cap & trade. Again, I'm all for alternative fuels.. but for now we need cheaper oil.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

I never said I didn't want alternative fuels for my larger car. I just said I don't like the government mandating smaller cars.

And I do believe gas could be a little cheaper if we would tap our own resources & don't implement the tragedy of cap & trade. Again, I'm all for alternative fuels.. but for now we need cheaper oil.

I agree, smaller cars should not be mandated, but incentives should be in place.

As for gas getting cheaper by digging here...That won't happen. When they tap those areas we aren't getting any discount, we will just be paying $5 a gallon to thieves in this country instead of Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I agree, smaller cars should not be mandated, but incentives should be in place.

As for gas getting cheaper by digging here...That won't happen. When they tap those areas we aren't getting any discount, we will just be paying $5 a gallon to thieves in this country instead of Saudi Arabia.

Actually it will be cheaper worldwide, as oil is an internationally traded commodity. More supply = cheaper price, here in the US, in Europe, and in the ME.

Originally Posted by brogers

Actually it will be cheaper worldwide, as oil is an internationally traded commodity. More supply = cheaper price, here in the US, in Europe, and in the ME.

My point is, by the time they even attempt to extract that stuff, the price will be on the rise so fast it won't even matter, i.e., a drop in the bucket. Sure, it may keep it down 20 cents for a couple of months, but gas will be upwards of $4 a gallon again before they tap those areas. More supply will mean a lower price, but when demand grows so high because people are too selfish to conserve, the amount they can extract will essentially be a drop in the bucket. So the logical course of action would be to conserve, but of course, why put yourself out by going one size smaller in your vehicle selection if you drive a shitload of miles every day.

well, I'm gonna get a full sized truck when I rotate back. I'm paynig cash for it. it won't be my primary vehicle.
I'll be using it for bad weather, camping/towing and hauling friends.
I'll still have my fairly fuel efficient two-seat car as wll as getting a sport bike to get around on.
I think other people are getting the big trucks as you can get them for a serious discount.
When I was stationed in Italy way back when, I'd see the Italians either getting around by bicycle, moped or a car the size of a Geo metro...but you look into their garages...and you see the BIG sedan they drive for holiday or special occasions.

You can throw the supply and demand thing out the window. Supplies are at almost 20 yr high and demand is still waning and price is still increasing. It's all speculation now and had been since Katrina. The government needs to make these oil guys take physical deliver of the oil and stop the contango and short selling to just get rich off of it. If they had to take it, they would never buy it.

Originally Posted by Fetusaurus Rex

Tough Economic Times*Video

no one else thought this was funny...?


Doms....?