Slashdot Mirror
Good Economy? Tech Layoffs Are Up
Nerval's Lobster writes: If you look at the broad numbers produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy seems great, especially for the tech industry: The unemployment rate for tech pros currently stands at 2.1 percent, down from 2.3 percent in the first quarter. However, that dip isn't uniform for all sectors: The unemployment rate for Web developers climbed from 2.1 percent to 3.1 percent. Computer support specialists, network and systems administrators, computer & information systems managers, and database administrators also saw their respective unemployment rates rising slightly. Layoffs and discharges for the tech industry as a whole rose slightly in April and May (the latest months for which the BLS had numbers), to an average of 441,500 employees per month. That's higher than the first quarter, when layoffs and discharges averaged 424,300 per month. That's not to say we're on the verge of a collapse, bubble, or other economic shock, but it's definitely not great times for everybody.
Who says its a great economy? Have we come to the point we think this is great. The last two presidents have been a disaster.
For an economy to thrive, all its parts must thrive.h
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The more computer geeks end in the streets the better. They deserve it. When they helped destroying the lives of entire families because computers and robots were taking the place of people, they laughed "you can't stop progress, candle-makers". Now it's them getting the short end of the stick and we're glad. You ever see any of those stupid nerds asking for change in the street, knife him in the guts.
Well, a lot of it is. So much stuff is plug and play these days, or is easily configured to the point that you don't really need to be an expert to do it that you need fewer and/or cheaper people - or you can have people in India do it remotely. Welcome to the 21st century, where you will reap what you have sown.
We in the tech industry may be taking it for granted that, by and large, we can hopscotch from job to job however it suits us. In the broader U.S. economy, with official unemployment still above 5%, underemployment around 11%, certain communities (such as poor, minority urban neighborhoods) well above that, and wages more or less flat or declining for the past decade, I would argue we should count our blessings. That also does not consider the situation in, say, most of the rest of the world, where the statistics paint a worse picture.
In any event, the fluctuations in the unemployment rate and layoff figures month-to-month are pretty meaningless. You still like to have the granularity of month-to-month datapoints, but the broader trends are revealed only in longer timescales.
Well, seeing as an unemployment rate of 3% or less is considered "full employment", this story is just another bullshit blown-out-of-proportion negative hit piece. Everyone gathers around to say it's so horrible, the government ought to do something, etc. I would ordinarily write this kind of crap off due to Slashdot's ridiculously bad editors, but in this case it seems it is another 'jobs' story required by Dice.com to add value to this website by helping to gather data. The article represents nothing but meaningless noise on a graph.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No, the reason there is increasing unemployment while also a shortage is because to become a tech worker you just have to collect a degree. To become a useful tech worker, you have to actually have some skills.
Lots of people want to become tech workers because of the promise of a quick fortune. A limited number will have actual skills (but without the passion) and might find a comfortable niche where they can charge out banker sort of rates for their services. A small number won't have any tech skills but will recognise this early and move into management before they are found out. A much larger number aren't even smart enough to figure out how little they know and get stuck complaining until they eventually attach themselves to a clueless corporation awash with money.
In the alternate world of people who work in tech because they enjoy it and can actually get things done, there is a huge shortage.
This sounds like normal shifting of the economic tides. Things change, and some people benefit and others have to find another path.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
So the news here is that absolute Web Developer unemployment went from 2.1% to 3.1% and tech layoff rose by ~5%. That is a fluctuation of 1 month! Oh noes! What will we do!? That is ONE MONTH you statistically challenged clod.
And a summer month at that, when I assume new grads are coming into the market.
Do you guys seriously have the gall to call that journalism?
It's easy to blame the last two presidents, but they're powerless compared to those who are really responsible for the current awful state of the global economy: Baby Boomers.
The Baby Boomers in the United States inherited one of the most successful, stable, equitable economies to have ever existed. Jobs were plentiful, innovation was rapid, inflation was minimal, and the economic machine ran very smoothly.
The earliest Baby Boomers started getting real influence within academia and government starting in the late 1960s, and within business starting in the early 1970s. The 1960s were a decade of wonder, even to the point of getting humans to the moon, not thanks to the effort of the Baby Boomers, but thanks to the effort of the generations who came before them. Almost as soon as the Baby Boomers started getting seriously involved in governance of the nation, of its academia, and of its businesses, things started going to hell.
Baby Boomers in general are best described as a "rotten" generation. They are very self-centered, with massive egos, and a complete lack of sensibility. They are sure they are right, even then they're obviously and hopelessly wrong, and will remain oblivious (or wilfully ignorant) to the point of disaster.
The 1970s were the first disaster caused by the Baby Boomers. Their Middle Eastern policies shot up the price of oil, harming the economy. They also managed to wreck the finances of cities like New York and Detroit. I know that some will say, "But Nixon wasn't a Baby Boomer!", yet in many ways he was very much one of them in attitude and mindset; he was just born somewhat earlier. That is why he was elected by the Baby Boomers, who made up the majority of the electorate at the time. His age aside, he was one of them, for all intents and purposes.
This progressed into the 1980s. The stereotype of the greedy, manipulative yuppie was nothing more than a description of the Baby Boomers who, due to their numbers, had taken control of much of business and government at that point. Economically, the 1980s were shameful, with major stock market crashes, recession, and finally at the end of the decade the imposition of "free" trade.
The 1990s saw the beginning of the unravelling of the economy due to the mismanagement of it by the Baby Boomers. Some may see most of the 1990s as having been economically good years, but the reality is that they were much worse than they could have been. The rise of the PC and the Internet during this decade could have improved the economy drastically, had their economic effects not been neutered by Baby Boomers.
The 2000s saw the complete unravelling of the economy due to the terrible management of the Baby Boomers. The price of a basic academic education spiralled out of control, thanks to the Baby Boomers who poorly managed such institutions, as well as the student loan industry. The economy was in tatters, with jobs being sent out of the country rapidly, yet without any sort of replacement jobs being created. Despite their earlier resistance to the Vietnam War when they were at risk of being sent to fight, Baby Boomers were very eager to start multiple foreign warzones now that they were in command and sending others off to die. We're all very well aware of how poorly the Baby Boomers ran the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq; they were complete disasters, and we're still dealing with the fallout even today.
Now half-way through the 2010s, we still see the Baby Boomers doing damage to our institutions, businesses, and economy as a whole. One thing to consider now is that their offspring, born in the 1980s, are now themselves getting into positions of power. Bred to have very much the same "rotten" attitude and mindset of their parents, we'll only see the disasters caused by the Baby Boomers prolonged by the Millennials that the Baby Boomers spawned.
Half a century ago, it would have been unimaginable for an entire generation to have been given so much, yet to have turned around and systematically squandered and destroyed it. But that's exactly what we saw the Baby Boomers do!
In his first two years, when the dems had full control,of the houee and senate, he made the economy significantly WORSE. When unemployment is high is not the time to focus on adding historical new burdens to hiring, such as Obamacare. You may remember his campaign commercials on radio when he planned to "go after companies". That's not how you stimulate business.
You can't blame that on republicans obstructing his agenda when his party had full control of the house, senate, and white house.
Things started to get closer to normal only AFTER the republicans started checking his war on business.
Jobs that have been created do not even come close to replacing the better paying jobs lost. Part time is a way of life now for many. The U6 statistics is the only reasonable federal picture of the economy. Since the unemployment rate most used by liberal media does not account for people who have lost benefits, given up their job search or fell off grid. If things were really that good, we would not still be talking about how they are not. Last months was the highest layoff count in 4 years.
With the rampant fraud and claims of "shortages", it's not going to be good.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You can't blame that on republicans obstructing his agenda when his party had full control of the house, senate, and white house.
You can blame it on Republicans obstructing the Democrat agenda when they were pushing Single-Payer Health care. This was actually the Republican health reform plan, which makes it hilarious how hard they fought against it. We couldn't have proper national health care because of the Republicans — the Democrats already tried that and the Republicans successfully stopped it. No big surprise; the insurance companies were never going to go for that, and it's corporations which truly run this country. One dollar, one vote.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Here's what I can't figure out. In the last 10 years, UX became a "thing." Its own discipline with its own dogma, jargon and crowd of faithful followers.
With so much emphasis on UX, why is it that so many designers still can't produce a usable interface worth fuck-all?
(captcha: canker)
Then make it strictly optional for someone to work for a third party, or for anything less than a full-time working arrangement, as a condition of accepting work.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I have a bridge with an ocean view to sell you. http://www.shadowstats.com/alt...
I'm afraid that a great deal of "web development" has become automated over time and done by other personnel. It's often cheaper and far, far faster for most sites to reduce their toolkits to a few well supported technologies and stop hosting their own storage, their own DNS, their own mail servers, and yes, their own "web server" farmss. I've helped various partners and clients reduce their developer head count by a great deal by discarding the in-house, only one developer in their own team knows it, proprietary technologies in favor of less flexible but far more stable and scalable technologies.
Jest yesterday, I spent the day going over available technologies pulled off of Google web searches by an eager web developer for some critical web services. I did show their manager the infamous "MongoDB is Webscale" video, to illustrate for their supervisor why adding "secret sauce" of exciting, new, in-house technologies can be destructive.
"We just can't find American tech workers anymore," repeated Mark Zuckerberg to Congress. "And here are some big campaign donations to prove my point."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
....say the usual suspects. C'mon, why should US Citizens be able to eat? /sarc
The unemployment rate for tech pros currently stands at 2.1 percent, down from 2.3 percent in the first quarter. However, that dip isn't uniform for all sectors: The unemployment rate for Web developers climbed from 2.1 percent to 3.1 percent.
A 1% or less change pretty much amounts to statistical noise. It is meaningless. That is almost certainly well within the amount of normal variation we should expect over short time periods. Furthermore those unemployment figures are roughly half that of the 5-6% unemployment rate currently enjoyed by the overall economy. Basically a 2-3% unemployment rate is as close as you ever get to full employment. It doesn't get better than that.
In his first two years, when the dems had full control,of the houee and senate, he made the economy significantly WORSE.
Neither the president nor congress controls the economy. The economy went in the tank due to events that occurred during the Bush administration. Lehman Brothers and the rest of it occurred prior to Obama taking office. But as much as I might dislike either of those presidents neither of them were responsible for the economy tanking and their tools to help fix it are limited. Arguments that this president or that one "made the economy worse" are by and large stupid and ill informed.
The logical fallacy you are falling prey to is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because things happen in a temporal order doesn't mean they are causal. Economic cycles rarely have much to do with who is in office at a given time.
Poor health did. All he did was pick up the slack assclowns like Scott Walker left with their right wing blather so we didn't have 2 mil new homeless.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Lots of things happen, for lots of reasons.
And economic policies have economic consequences. When you make it more expensive to hire people, fewer people get hired.
> Just because things happen in a temporal order doesn't mean they are causal.
Repeated experiments are good for seeing if two events are coincidence or if they are causal. Keep doing A and see if B keeps happening as a result. This chart was made before Obama was elected, but it does show 40 years of trying dem policies and trying republican policies:
http://bettercgi.com/tmp/clint...
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets, and ALWAYS gotten better during every republican administration. When it happens every single time, that's not coincidence.
The chart was made just before Bush started spending like Ted Kennedy at a strip club, with the results you'd expect.
Most of the back to work efforts are concentrated on Home Depot jobs, that is the best that these fidiots in Washington would ever take credit for...
I see more of an "Indian summer" than ever before in NY/NJ, they have really got a lot of end runs around the stipulation that visa jobs need some special level of skill to supplant a american worker..
This chart was made before Obama was elected, but it does show 40 years of trying dem policies and trying republican policies:
Your chart is nonsense because it doesn't indicate the unit of measure. It could be growth in bunny rabbits for all we know. Furthermore there are plenty of actually reputable sources of data that say you are wrong. See below.
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets
The actual facts show you have that backwards. GDP growth has been higher when a democrat is in the white house. That said, you have missed the point. Arguing about which president was responsible for improving the economy is idiotic. The president has very limited control of the direction of the economy. Blaming or applauding the president for the state of the economy is basically and admission you have no idea how economics actually works.
If the underlying industries that rely on tech are doing poorly, so will we all. The tech industry does not live in a bubble, no matter what Silicon Valley thinks.
The size of the economy is measured in constant dollars, growth is measured in percent. That's how it's always done, so labeling it is a bit unnecessary and redundant.
You'll notice that economic growth has ALWAYS gotten worse under the EVERY democrat administration's budgets
> The actual facts [cnn.com] show you have that backwards
Did you LOOK at that page before linking to it? Your CNN link says that median income improved under Reagan, Bush, etc. So if you choose to trust that CNN is giveaway you correct numbers, you now know that traditional republican policies increase incomes.
Your second link is garbage. The numbers overall are WAY too high especially their democrat numbers; it looks like they treated inflation as growth rather than using constant dollars. Really they showed that inflation is higher under democrat policies, and presented that as if it were a good thing. Secondly, a president's first budget takes effect a year after they are inaugurated . (The effects start to be visible about a year later). The second link assigns the results during 2009, for example, to Obama - while Bush's budget was still in effect. That's misleading. The year Bush took office, we were operating under Clinton's budget, Clinton's policies. The state of the economy isn't much effected by the guy who just got elected, it's much more effected by the federal budget policies we're operating under.
Good economy? Hardly. Labor participation rate is at a 38 year low. The politicians can mask some of the figures, but not all of them. The economy is just getting bad enough where even one sought after positions are starting to feel the impact. Hopefully we'll get some competent leadership soon!
When unemployment is high is not the time to focus on adding historical new burdens to hiring, such as Obamacare.
I have to agree I was disappointed with his choice of focus.
It seems that "leisure society" is a dirty word, so let's call it a "post-labor society". What needs to be done? Who needs to actually work? It seems most "work" these days is just performance art to convince other people we're important.
We have the technology and resources to support this concept, but we refuse to do it.
There's nothing wrong with our technology, but our brains are still wired like apes in the Plains.
Also, while we're at it, here's some proof for the ageism in the tech industry:
http://www.richtek.com/About%20Richtek/Careers
This unfolded yesterday / today with a hiring manager at a company I applied to.
Hiring Manager: You meet all of our conditions, but your resume has an 8 month gap on it. Can you explain this? Also do you know anyone at (the company) who would vouch for your work?
Me: I took 8 months off after putting in 6 weeks notice at my previous job. Call my references, which include my former direct manager. After working 65-80 hours per week for 4 years, I decided to leave the position. Also, contact (three employees at company) who I interacted with and worked alongside for (two major projects).
Hiring Manager: What's your availability?
Me: I will be available until the end of next week, after which I will be formally accepting an offer with (other company).
Hiring Manager: We're deciding to withdraw your resume based on the statement that you aren't available.
Me: Thanks for your time, and good luck with your candidate search.
Hiring Manager: Wait, we can accomodate you. Can you start on Monday?
It's an employee's market in tech right now if you have any sort of experience and have developed a reputation for being able to perform the job well.
I'm not expecting special treatment, I just want a fair deal. You hire me, I do above average work without complaint. I'm not interested in their games. When that deal starts slanting in the employer's favor, I put in notice and leave. Employers can get fucked.
You can blame it on Republicans obstructing the Democrat agenda when they were pushing Single-Payer Health care.
Democrats couldn't get single-payer because Democrats didn't favor single payer. Enough Democrats opposed it that they couldn't get it through. What Republicans wanted really never came into play.....it didn't need to because Democrats completely controlled congress, and they took advantage of it.
Again, it was Democrat opposition to single-payer that prevented it from becoming a reality.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Weird because we are actively hiring!
Course Hero Inc.
https://www.coursehero.com/jobs/
This is all the fault of FWD.us, Code.org, K-12 CS core standards, Mark Zuckerburg and Melinda Gates!
Troll!!!
Why should techies not go and set up another startup to make new products?
Thats what they always do in the face of adversity!
The stock market does not represent the health of the economy. It is up because of all that money the Fed printed. The money folks had no orher place to put it. They would borrow really cheap and buy stocks. In other words, it's just asset inflation - there are no fundamentals to back it. Corp profits have flat for a couple of years now.
In the old days, lower oil prices would mean a higher stock market. Now, lower oil prices actulaay hurt the market.
The stock market and the economy's health have been decoupled. Also, much of the multinatioals' profits are made overseas.
What I'm finding is this:
- Really good people with lots of experience are having an easy time finding work. (I get recruitment emails at least 2 or 3 times a week and haven't updated any of my resume/linkedin stuff in 3 years, nor have expressed any interest in a new job right now.)
- Lower-skill people or those with less experience are really having difficulty, especially new grads.
I attribute this to a couple of things. First, the nature of the work is changing somewhat, and companies are increasingly looking to hire people who possess a lot of experience and multiple skills. Second and more ominous, the low level jobs are increasingly being offshored, outsourced or eliminated. As an experienced guy, I don't like this because it doesn't allow for succession planning. New grads and new entrants into the field need those jobs at the low end to learn and grow into the experienced peoples' roles. I was a help desk person and a desktop support guy for quite a while before I got my first system admin job, for example. Let's say everyone migrates all their data to the cloud. This means that all the data center jobs move to the cloud companies, who mainly roll their own hardware and have endless fields of servers that are just swapped out when they fail. Those data center jobs then become break/fix maintenance jobs, making it difficult to make the natural progression that data center operations guys normally go through -- system admin, architect, etc. once they learn the ropes and the end-to-end of everything.
It's definitely going to be a big change coming up. Wages are going to be driven down even further, and you're going to see a binomial distribution that's more pronounced than it is now. I think the layoffs the article is referring to are definitely hitting the lower end of the IT job spectrum harder than the higher end. The company I work for is notoriously stingy with headcount and even they are hiring experienced people right now.
AUTOMATIC LEAD TOOLS IS BEST FOR BUSINESS If you are exhausted of the struggle and just want to make real money from the comfort of your home look no further because that is exactly what you will be doing once you get started with Automatic Lead Tools. Do you want a Home Based business that is growing every day? I’m looking for people that want to earn an extra income using Automatic Lead Tools, Automatic Lead tools provides products that every marketer and business owner could really benefit from. Learn to be profitable in whatever you do in life. Staying positive and staying away from the negativity will help you in your business & life. Take inbound calls from home. Earn $400 Per Sale Instantly if interested please do call me on (888) 780-9464 or (310) 299-2807 Or visit our website www.LeadToolsGlobal.net
So how many Republicans were for single-payer?
That's irrelevant, Republican votes didn't matter, but probably none.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The participation rate, the percentage of Americans working is at a 38 year low.
An economy with fewer Americans working is not 'great'.
Ken
Not just "none", but they actually invoked the cloture. So Democrats had to muster 60 votes instead of just 50, and that required compromising with DINOs. Had Republicans simply acceded to the vote of majority, we would have had a nice single-payer system.
And actually, I don't even remember a single Republican-led constructive initiative recently.
Except it is bullshit. Many have left or given up. Especially in the 50 and over set.
Tons of people have left the tech field, or completely given up on employment. My last tech job paid less than minimum wage (based on all the hours required) when expenses were included and pay rate was cut by 35% I was better off quitting.
In a few years I will live off SS. Enjoy working 80 hour weeks and supporting people like me. I would have been glad to work for a reasonable wage, but no jobs for me while H1-B continues to soar.
Note also that the Democrats didn't have a full 60 Senators for long. Senator Franken was not seated for several months, for example, as his exceedingly close margin of victory was very carefully scrutinized, with legal proceedings on both sides.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you don't mind moving to the Twin Cities (we have negative unemployment in theory for software engineers, there are more spots than we can find talent - it's a pretty good gig for us out here), we've got a couple of spots open in our R&D department. Don't worry about what languages you know, we're looking for full stack developers and assume you can learn or adapt - our core is Java, but we use a handful of languages and only care that you're really good with one and can fumble through the others. My boss, the head of R&D, is a legit alpha geek and has clout in the company like you wouldn't believe. We're isolated from the rest of the company and its politics for the most part.
Ping me if you want more info. Full disclosure, if someone I recommend gets hired and stays on for a year, I get a bounty of ~$1k.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
"It's the Republicans fault the Democrats couldn't get their act together."
Oh, ok. So why should we vote for your party of disorganized idiots again?
And actually, I don't even remember a single Republican-led constructive initiative recently.
That's because you're a partisan Democrat, you disagree with the Republican agenda, and anything they try to do to reach their goals, you will not consider constructive. (understandably, because it opposes your own goals).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are over 50 and you have been in the tech field for over 25 years, and yet, you are still 'working' as a programmer?
Something is very wrong with you, dude, something which is very very wrong
Take a deep, good look at yourself, dude. It is not that others do not want to employ you, it's your own attitude that makes you unemployable
It's not your age (yes, agism does exist in the tech field, I know), it's how you perceive the world which makes it so repulsive to all potential employers that you remain unemployed since, as you put it, the start of the year
Take some time, dude, and read what you have written:
there is MOST DEFINITELY something really wrong about our current tech employment 'style'
See how you blame others while taking none of the responsibilities on your own self?
Don't even try to wave your victim card, dude, you get none from me, also a veteran in the tech field - with longer years (over 3 decades) - and if you really want to know, I haven't been actively working as a programmer for over a decade
The 'life cycle' of the tech career is far different from say, a mechanic or a brick layer. In the tech world, you do not stay in the same level year after year, unless you want to be pushed aside - In the tech scene we move up the food chain, we expand our horizon, we absorb new knowledge, we try out new things, we acquire new skills, and make ourselves more capable today than yesterday
If you do not do that, don't blame anybody else, dude. You have your own lazy, useless and clueless self to blame
Nowadays I own businesses in and off the tech scene, and in the meantime I also invest in other businesses, businesses started by someone else, businesses with potential
Stop blaming others, dude. You are the one with the problem, not the industry
Captha: denying
That dude is a fucking loser. With over 25 years of experience under his belt and he's still behaving like a crybaby
What do you think a loser like that can contribute to your R&D effort?
Unless that fucker wakes the fuck up and realize that the world doesn't owe him shit he will still waving his victim card whenever he finds the chance
Captha: proffer
So let's see. What is the Republican plan for universal healthcare?
...crickets...
...crickets dying from mercury in coal ash...
...crickets...
...crickets are stuck in a traffic jam on the bridge...
...crickets bombing Iran...
Hm. How about environment regulation?
Education and student debts? Aging infrastructure?
That desperately needed tunnel under the Hudson River?
Middle east?
Yes, the Republican party is not constructive. It simply can't offer ANYTHING but the same old: "Cut taxes and reduce regulation (especially on Wall Street)".
Come to think about it... I actually remember one constructive law that was passed by this Congress! It was to allow big banks to use FDIC-insured funds for speculation. It was _literally_ written by Chase lobbyists and had universal Republican approval.
Oh look, you listed all the things that are important to you, and started wishing the Republicans would do something about it.
Do you understand what it means to be partisan?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ok, so what important things Republicans stand for these days?
And do you approve of big banks using Federally-insured funds for gambling? Cause that's what Republicans are standing for right now. ALL of them: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
And do you approve of big banks using Federally-insured funds for gambling? Cause that's what Republicans are standing for right now. ALL of them: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
There is close to nothing about Dodd Frank I approve, and generally the handling of the financial crisis was abysmal by both Bush and Obama. But what do you expect when you have bankers as advisers?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Oh, a typical "there's nothing I approve, so everything's OK". In this case Republicans explicitly passed a law that goes against the Republican ideology of free market and small government, this law guarantees that the banks WILL BE BAILED OUT by FDIC in case of a failed gamble. But for you it's OK, since it's an "amendment" to an act that you don't like.
That's just one example. Republicans are not a political party - they don't have an economic strategy or anything remotely practical. They are by now a tool of wealthy corporations.
And now about "both parties do this" (which is the last defense of a scoundrel). There's a really important point here - there are Democrats in the Congress who are not beholden to Big Money. But there are NO Republicans in the Congress that even remotely care about people.
It's not a matter of getting their act together, which has always been challenging for Democrats, it's a matter of capability. It's hard to muster 60 Democrats to vote for something in the Senate when there's only 59 Senators who are Democrats or independents caucusing with the Democrats.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But there are NO Republicans in the Congress that even remotely care about people.
See? Now you're being blindly partisan again. Democrats say that Republicans don't care about people because Republicans don't like welfare. Republicans say that Democrats don't care about people because Democrats try to trap people in an inter-generational dependency scheme (Democrats just want to rule over you, etc).
Here's an example of a Republican view on how to tackle poverty, for example.
btw, I read this summary of the bill you linked to, and I can't find anything about the FDIC bailing out banks. Are you sure you linked to the right bill?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
See? Now you're being blindly partisan again. Democrats say that Republicans don't care about people because Republicans don't like welfare.
Nope. I don't like Republicans because they don't care about people, as your very own link suggests. ALL they want is more misery and more tax cuts.
BTW, I'm still waiting for examples of enacted constructive policies from Republicans that actually produced the intended results. Can you name a few?
As for the act, the crucial clause is this:
Amends the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to exempt, from the rules of prudential regulators for swap dealers and major swap participants with respect to initial and variation margin requirements for swaps not cleared by a registered derivatives clearing organization, those swaps in which one of the counterparties....
Republicans because they don't care about people, as your very own link suggests. ALL they want is more misery and more tax cuts.
LOL ok, if you believe that, I can say nothing more to you. You're too blind.
As for the act, the crucial clause is this:
That clause doesn't apply to banks, financial entities, or brokers. It has nothing to do with the FDIC. I don't understand what you don't like about it.
I'm still waiting for examples of enacted constructive policies from Republicans that actually produced the intended results. Can you name a few?
Recently there hasn't been much, because Obama can veto nearly anything. I am a little worried what might happen if they get a Republican president. However, here are some things:
* They attempted to eliminate the ACA tax on medical devices, as one example.
* Reducing spending with the sequester was one where they actually achieved their goal (although Obama achieved some of his goals, too, but there's nothing wrong with that).
* They voted to defund Planned Parenthood, but failed because of Democrat opposition.
You may not agree with the goals of these initiatives, but that's ok, as long as you realize that most of politics is not about "right" or "wrong," it's about "what we want" vs "what they want." Politics is about balancing what different people want.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Eliminating ACA tax on medical devices MIGHT be a good idea, if they can provide a balanced tax increase or a cut on something else. Had they done so?
Sequester was the worst possible way to get cuts. And it was also in its very nature NOT constructive - it was meant to be a cudgel to force parties to make an agreement.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is also not constructive. And is extremely prejudiced and stupid (but what can you expect from Republicans?...).
So what other constructive laws have they proposed? I'm asking for constructive proposals, that do not simply say "let's grow economy by 5000% by 2020 by eliminating ACA!" but actually provide a deficit-neutral way to do it.
No, there is nothing Republicans do that you will like, because you are partisan. By definition, you dislike everything they do. They could create world peace, and you would still manage to find a way to dislike it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Exactly which party do you think I'm standing for? I don't like a lot of stuff Democrats do and I like some of stuff many third parties are for. Hell, I even agree with Libertarians on some points.
Besides, "it's partisanship!" is about as stupid an argument as anything. EVERYTHING is patisanship, because there's likely to be a political party out there that stands for it.
I'm evaluating actual Republican performance and position. Both of them are beyond contempt. There is no single Republican in the Congress that I respect, all of them can be transformed into gutter slime and the country will be better for it.
There is no single Republican in the Congress that I respect,
Yes, I know.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."