The general sway of this article evokes Galbraith's 'The Affluent Society' some fifty years ago. Of course, he recognised the importance of the 'corporation' as a provider of employment, and a source of growing affluence and living standards for the everyday American. Even as employers' and directors' bonuses continued to rise exponentially. What he felt was missing was a sense of collective responsibility for maintaining social and community standards.
Why don't we, as well as fining banks, impose a form of community service on them? They could be put in charge of a construction programme for a number of youth clubs, and meals-on-wheels services for the elderly and disabled. Their sponsorship of the scheme would be evident on all associated marketing material, boosting their relationship with the community. The review of their performance would be done through a ballot by those in receipt of the service, and other people living in the region.
I am far from defending the corrupt actions of those who run financial institutions. But trying to enforce a criminal charge against a corporation consisting of a complicated chain of commands is difficult. You cannot send the entire board of directors, the plant and the line manager, and any sub-contractors inadvertently responsible for safety violations, to prison for manslaughter through negligence. US prisons are already full to bursting - though admittedly some room could be made if you released those locked up for possessing small amounts of illegal substances.
As a legal entity, a company has to be treated differently from a single person - not in the sentence, but in the punishment enforced. But yes, more needs to be done to ensure that safety and preventive measures, against criminal malpractice, are properly enforced by regulators.
I couldn't help but think how timely this article was and it was updated with the HSBC results. I think Mexican drug cartels are responsible for about 13,000 murders per year. I linked to the original article about HSBC money laundering, actually two articles and it was brazen by the Senate study.
The profits from laundering drug money, which is estimated to be $1 trillion, launder about $2.6 trillion a year.
So, $1.9 billion is still chump change in comparison to the amount they laundered and the fees they collected.
That's about half of one quarter's profits for HSBC. Yet to find their profits from laundering but it's been going on for some time, so again, just kickback.
===============
If American REALLY wanted to tackle their deficit they would legalize pot, tax it at the federal level to pay down the debt and then SEIZE all Mexican drug cartels assets, globally and just say "they are ours". They would work a deal with the Mexican government later to give some of it back, but just those actions, plus the $1 trillion wasted fighting the "drug war" would pretty much put the deficit issue to rest.
Goes to show what a rigged system this all really is.
HSBC just reached a deal (or is about to). Will pay fine at $1 billion + for its business of money laundering. And the stock is up on the news. Again, how is aiding terrorism or drug trafficking by laundering criminal proceeds and then returning them to terrorists and drug traffickers not subject to federal conspiracy laws? How does that not make everyone involved a co-conspirator and accomplice to terrorist acts and drug trafficking along with subject to every other law the feds love (e.g., tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, lying to federal agents, using interstate communication devices to commit crimes, etc.)? How do people helping terrorists and drug traffickers not spend one day in jail or a year of probation or suffer job losses or any forfeiture acts or get bashed in the media? No need to answer. The speed with which these deals were wrapped up sure does establish justice is swift and easy for big banksters. There are people waiting for trials for a year on charges of one sale or one count of laundering money in amounts 1/10000 the amount these banks handled in state courts, so if you break the law and want sweet, easy justice, GO BIG and make sure you let your representatives and lobbying groups know what you're up to so they can help you out ASAP if needed. In fact, no need to expose yourself to public rage. Everything will be handled behind the scenes and your attorneys will appear in a public courtroom at the very end to admit something really vague so business can go on as usual. Seems only yesterday we had the S&L crisis, mortgage fraud, derivatives, FinCEN being set up solely to fight money laundering, gung-ho "follow the money" following 9/11 because the feds wanted to appear to care about terrorism financing. But every day it's shown who wields the power.
1. 2011 industrial engineers: 211,490
1999 industrial engineers: 155,910
a whopping gain over 12 years of 55,580.
During the same time period there have been around the same amount of BS industrial engineering degrees conferred to those with U.S. citizenship. That isn't counting the MS and PhD additional degrees.
2. Depends. These are by occupations, jobs titles. So a Physics PhD working as a quant in finance would probably be still classified as a statistician, which would be STEM or a mathematician, which would be STEM, mathematics, "other".
3. Since most of these are "young" one would have to go by education and again, U.S. universities are ranking the best in the world as a rule and the educational requirements are more in depth, longer, more credit hours. The U.S. also has more work experience with labs, projects, internships, co-ops, undergrad work at the University. Working in America previously, the U.S. is still considered the most advanced STEM industry in the world.
4. That is forced, a large part, then income is part of it. Wage arbitrage causes some to look elsewhere to a middle class income.
5. The fact you are even asking that says volumes. Heard of citizenship, of a domestic economy and the need for a nation-state to employ their citizens? That one of the primarily responsibilities of businesses inside a nation-state is to provide employment to the people who live in that nation-state?
Anyone noticing blocks moving around the site, beyond any real bother, let me know, this is just temporary. The site is in process of a MAJOR upgrade and the block moves today were all about getting one of our sponsored advertisers to display correctly.
The site upgrade layout won't look much like this at all in the end.
No fan of State AGs because most of them just as bad as fed "enforcement/regulation," but the NY AG and banking authorities back in the summer caused all the commotion when they finally couldn't sit idly by while Standard Chartered continued ignoring the rules and laws for almost a decade now regarding money laundering. Of course Wells Fargo and the other banks also love the money laundering - it's a money maker for all concerned. So what happened as this site and others showed this summer? Well, the Treasury, OFAC, FinCEN, DOJ, or whatever other useless agencies just couldn't have terrorism $ laundering banksters being treated like the citizens. Versailles protects its own, even if they are foreign nobility/banksters headquartered in the UK. So they squashed the NY authorities, got pissed at them (instead of banks aiding and abetting our enemies and compromising our security) and protected the banks with a sweetheart deal. Let me ask, if I can make tens of billions and only get fined millions, why shouldn't I break the law? Cost-benefit analysis says go ahead, break the law, make more money than following the law like suckers, and the feds will protect you. Especially when I can use the same money I just made from crime to help protect me - isn't that the very definition of corruption?
Notice how this story isn't covered on front pages anywhere. But CNN has stories on what it means to be "black" (WTF?) in America in 2012, gay marriages, the phone prank in UK/Australia, some football stories, etc. Now, our government and politicians helping business make $ and protecting them as they break laws and endanger us is important and shows how compromised we are by our "leaders" and govt., but you'd never know it by the stories they want us to care about. They have a ready stock of hundreds of stories that will fire up people because they have no real answers, play off emotions, divide people, and can be brought out in 1990 or 2000 or 2050, whenever they are needed to distract from the corporate criminals bankrolling them.
By the way, why do banks and other corporations even bother with the pretense of having compliance departments and general counsels? If you are honest and work there, you'd get fired. No one that cares will make it past computer screening in the first place. And the banks make money by purposely ignoring rules and regulations. So save the salaries, cut the entire compliance and legal staff, and have at it. In fact, get rid of the Treasury OFAC, FinCEN, DOJ (especially organized crime because if big banks aren't "organized crime," nothing is), and every other agency paying $50,000 - millions in the private sector. It's a waste, it's a joke, and we all know it.
"See something, say something" - the govt. doesn't care about anything except helping its corporate sponsors make more money for the people in the boardrooms at the expense of our financial and physical safety and welfare. Now act on that DHS. . .
When this article was published the deal wasn't officially announced, now it is.
Standard Chartered Plc (STAN), Britain’s second-largest bank by market value, agreed to pay $327 million of fines, in line with the bank’s forecast, after regulators alleged it violated U.S. sanctions with Iran.
After paying a $340 million settlement in August to New York’s Department of Financial Services, the London-based company told investors on Dec. 6 it expected to pay about $330 million on Dec. 6 to resolve other investigations.
The bank will pay $100 million to the Federal Reserve and $227 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and the District Attorney for New York County. The settlement includes a $132 million fine to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, according to a statement from the Federal Reserve today.
Just outrageous considering their numerous violations and repeated violations.
Rules of the game - incorporate along with a few other people, conduct some legitimate business (although that doesn't have to generate profits, or even a majority of your business activities), break as many laws as you want, or to avoid any problems, write the laws yourself and have your paid-for-politicians adopt them directly, and reap those profits. If you don't generate profits, loot the company before you destroy it. You are a "job creator," after all, and that comes with privileges. Lobby and fund raise for international charities. In fact, name a charity after yourself or your corporation - no need to check your ego at the door, you are godlike, it's time to let everyone else know it. People with charities don't get in trouble with the law, how many CEOs and key donors are ever arrested or locked up in a real prison? If you get in trouble ever, despite lobbying Congress, your local, county, and state politicians, international groups such as the IMF, EU, World Bank, UN, etc., lobby the DOJ and your politicians harder.
Make sure your corporation's big law firm has a habit of hiring federal prosecutors and regulators and that federal prosecutors and regulators hire from those same law firms. Regular revolving door hiring policies ensure everyone gets along and no real enforcement, prosecution, or changes happen. Troublemakers aren't hired by the feds, and people that ask questions are exactly that. Adversarial justice and litigation is for the 99%, not the plutocratic big dogs in the boardrooms. Hire one or two feds on your staff directly and the illusion is even better. If they dare make waves (and who would if they want that big paycheck), show them the door. Opensecrets shows the lobbying that our govt. accepts. Who knew law enforcement agencies like the DOJ could actually be lobbied? Funny, everyday citizens surely aren't gaining access to the AG's office and meetings rooms. The DOJ and others will step in and claim federal preemption and supremacy over other agencies even though that's incorrect and states can prosecute criminal matters even when the Feds choose to or not to (still waiting for the NY AG to prosecute Corzine or anyone that had a victim he stole from live in their county or state - guess we'll keep waiting).
If you get called in for a hearing, make sure your PR and lobbying team has hundreds of secret meetings before you ever step into a chamber. Donate to their friends and families and give them sweet jobs in your corporation or in a friend's corporation. And when you appear, blame everything on underlings and claim "you forgot" and "mistakes were made by other people, changes will be made, but it's not the fault of the company or top people." Make sure you appear repeatedly on TV and radio to plead your case to people on your payroll. Repeat "job creator" and "uncertainty" 100+ times per media appearance and how the threat of facing law enforcement or regulatory enforcement might prevent you from building a new vacation home, and that might not create 100 here or in Tahiti. Wear your flag lapel pins at all times. After all, how can a bank CEO raise money for Iran or drug cartels or make $40 million + for doing exactly that if he's wearing a flag lapel pin and his interviewer is also wearing a flag lapel pin? People that wear flag lapel pins would never launder money for people that build IEDs or blow up buildings or cars or launch missiles against allies or run an entire country based on meth production, right? If they ask tough questions (i.e., questions off script), fire them and their producers for hiring people with a modicum of integrity. Continue collecting massive loot while paying fines less than 1% of the ill-gotten wealth. Never fear incarceration or forfeiture or a raised voice. Rinse and repeat.
**This is good for all crimes involving large corporations (in funds, not necessarily in number of legitimate business activities or number of employees). If you are a small Mom-and-Pop corporation incorporated solely to conduct legitimate business and avoid personal liability, forget this advice, you're screwed. Individuals, break the law, you're screwed. However, big enough and corrupt enough (sorry, "lobby" enough) the world is your oyster. Commit fraud on a massive scale in securities, banking, housing, or any other sector your heart desires across towns, counties, states, and nations, forge documents and bribe or intimidate witnesses, help arm criminals and rogue nations and launder their money, bribe here and overseas, destroy environments, break wage and labor laws, directly endanger the lives of those you employ (or your subcontractors' subs employ), skimp on safety, loot corporate $ at the expense of shareholders, eavesdrop on people to make more loot, hinder investigations, etc. You get the message. Now go rape and pillage big kleptocrats, we paid for it and pay for it every day the rule of law is shown for the farce it is.
No one seems to want to mention Marx though he was right-on in many of his observations about capitalism.
One thing that Marx was wrong about was that he allowed himself to believe that capitalism was somehow other than a short-time phenomenon.
It is my sense that by now it is clearly visible that 'democracy' is not the domain of people as a whole, but has--over a fairly long period of time (a thousand years or so) been seized by 'corporate interests', which began as a 'democracy for princes only'. This is how we came to the Magna Charta, which in due course became modified into parliamentary government.
Direct democracy has been avoided by government ever since human beings were excluded from their true hideaway, the wood or the forest. The forest has suffered from deforestation exercised by corporate entities for the thousand years mentioned above. The consequence is the desert, the urban landscape, which practices a kind of rhetorical 'democracy' that never works and will never work until we figure out how to return to life in the wood.
Personally, I believe the study of how to reform corporatism ridiculous, another attempt to escape facing reality by academics who have learned well the methods of stealth that have concealed stealing for so long so well.
We now have an official history of the $1 trillion coin idea and where it came from. This is assuredly true for we know many of our original posts magically appear elsewhere, the content, calculations uncredited.
Our apologizes for not getting it right on the coinage idea attribution.
If we add up, from table A. the unemployed by duration of time, we get -392,000. Yet also from table A, the unemployed only dropped -229,000. What happened?
The first thing to know is these are separate series. The total unemployed are aggregate figures from 4 separate series and then are seasonally adjusted after aggregation.
The unemployed by duration are separate survey questions and data series and they are also seasonally adjusted as their own separate survey responses.
So, they don't always add.
When one looks at duration it often will not add to the drop in those unemployed. The reason is some moved from different time periods, i.e. those unemployed less than 5 weeks moved to those unemployed 5-14 weeks. Then some did obtain jobs, but others dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted as employed or unemployed. They may have worked a short temporary job in the reference week, hence moved from long term unemployed to < 5 weeks doing some very short temporary job.
If one notices the civilian labor force overall dropped by the total employed and unemployed., -350,000. Yet if one notices those "not in the labor force" increased by the same amount as the drop in employed, unemployed and the growth in the civilian noninstitutional population, or 542,000.
So, the survey askes 60,000 households each month and those figures are then extrapolated to apply to the total U.S. population. In the CPS, the total unemployment and unemployment series are aggregated by independently adjusted components.
Since you are referencing the tables, if you pull up the complete report, also linked here at the top of this article then go down to about page 10, after table A and B
you will see "technical note" and then look under Seasonal adjustment and that's why these figures do not add.
Additionally, there is a funky little fact. If you look at part-time in the tables, that doesn't add up to table A either and the reason is one is asking is your job part-time while the other is asking did you work part-time hours in the survey reference week.
Good eye! The BLS employment report as are many government statistics are little mini jigsaw puzzles, it can get tricky and at least you're reading their statistical release!
it appears that the number of those jobless more than 27 weeks declined by a seasonally adjusted 216,000, from 5,002,000 in October to 4,786,000 in November; however, since those unemployed less than 5 weeks, 5 to 14 weeks, and 15 to 27 weeks also declined by an additional 176,000, the duration of employment numbers dont add up to the 229,000 less unemployed reported by the household survey...
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
what am i missing here?
Mr.Crown's ideas are oblivously reasonable to stakeholders. Thank you stating them. While you seem to be discussing on a policy level, an application came to my mind: That is, a formerly proposed "accounting" mechanism of a point-of-origin recycling principle. For example, an corporation utilizing coal in its production process, would automatically include the costs of recycling, or, neutralizing the harmful by-products, of coal, such as dust, sulfulic acid in the air, ...
Indeed, this re-cycling mandate could be costed into the R&D. Such technological information is probably already available, if adapted. Besides the element of coal, other ingredients of produced products could be recycled from the point-of-origin by embedding during the prod. process neutralizing organisms, or mechanical processes, that when the intended use of the product is completed, would netralize the toxicity of the product. Just thinking.
This is true, I ignored the L-1 Visa simply because obtaining valid statistics wasn't found, the same with TN-1 Visas. There are many foreign guest worker Visas being abused, use to labor arbitrage Americans, worker substitution, which are ignored for this article, including H-2B Visas.
L-1 Visas are "inter company transfer" Visas. A foreign parent company uses these Visas to send employees to a FCDC and employers, in particular Indian "body shops", abuse these extensively, you are correct. EPI just wrote an open letter on the abuses of L-1.
TN Visas are unlimited "professional" Visas from Mexico and Canada under NAFTA and are also heavily abused.
Another known highly conservative estimate in this article is the number of H-1B Visa holders working and in the country. That estimate is low simply because it was the lower bound of what could be statistically verified. The real number is probably double that amount.
The reason the estimates are low and many Visas are ignored is to ensure the statistics of this article are valid, cannot be argued with. Lobbyists spend millions trying to repress information that is contained in this post, as do other "special interest groups", the least of which is immigration attorneys who make a huge profit off of importing foreign workers.
As we've said, many, many times, Shadowstats does not publish their methodology, therefore we cannot validate those figures. Upon occasion we calculate out our own real unemployment rate from BLS data but we can never come up with the high figures Shadowstats does. It doesn't mean Shadowstats is invalid, but we cannot determine how those figures are derived, therefore we do not use them, for we only publish statistics we can validate.
Links are disabled for anonymous comments, please register and login to post links and to properly format them.
The NumbersUSA post is referring to this CIS study, Who Got Jobs During the Obama Presidency?.
I've read their study there is a huge problem. The BLS only counts those not born in the United States against those born within the borders of the U.S. Therefore, foreign born means children brought over by their parents at a very young age, it means naturalized citizens born outside of the United States, permanent residents (green cards) and the foreign born also includes foreign guest workers and illegal workers.
So, the CIS study classifies the foreign born as immigrants. This really isn't quite valid. I wouldn't call someone who was simply born outside of the United States an immigrant, especially if they are naturalized citizens or brought over as very young children. There is a huge difference between this group and say a L-1 Visa worker.
The problem is we need accurate labor statistics by immigration status, bottom line. Our government sticks their head in the sand and won't even determine the numbers. That's just wrong and so often we hear some philosophy of one cannot ask a worker's immigration status because it might "offend" them or "cause them to run back into the shadows". This is ridiculous, it's the U.S. labor market, the U.S. labor statistics and we need accurate data on what is going on, which in turn can influence policy.
Fairly obvious politicians in D.C. do not want this information known for it if was tabulated, one can imagine how fast most of America would be outraged, consider our never ending job crisis. Bottom line, statistical agencies are simply supposed to obtain the statistics and not impose a view or philosophy on those statistics.
It is one thing to know the facts, another to craft policy as a result of those facts. Let us simply know the real statistics, please. Write your Congressional representatives demanding immigration status be asked by the Census for our labor/employment surveys.
Beyond this flaw of the CIS study, I've looked over their data and it appears to be straight out of the BLS statistics, which is more than valid to simply tabulate those figures.
This is an interesting story on how Microsoft eventually is going down.
More interesting there is a pattern. Corporations hire H-1Bs, labor arbitrage their engineers, churn them, fire them and replace them with younger, cheaper ones.
Anyone else notice that eventually they lose market share, stop being a leader? I can think of a host of companies that labor arbitraged their engineers and then this happened, HP being the largest example. Lucent, Motorola, the list goes on and on.
I enjoyed reading your article and thought that, overall, it was excellent.
I would like to point out, however, that you have overlooked some important points. First, your article mentions the L-1 visa but once. Just once. Second, your article does not mention the TN-1 visa at all. Not even once. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it has been estimated that the number of L-1 visa holders in the USA is about six or seven times the number of H-1B visa holders. I wrote "estimated" because even the Federal government has no clue as to their number. Why? Because even the Federal government does not compile or maintain records on the number of L-1 visa holders currently living in the USA. Incredible, but true. Hence, the H-1B scandal is but "the tip of the iceberg." The actual number of visa holders is far greater than is commonly reported, making the scandal that much worse.
Relatedly, I would like to point out that the true unemployment rate in the USA is now about 23%:
The chart above shows the Gross Private Investment portion of the GDP.
I was forced out of work in 2003.
You will notice that every time they quit investing in America we had major job losses.
Now let me show you the "Who"
http://keepamericaatwork.com/?p=208200
There are three "camps" described in that article.
Each of them believes that it is just good business sense to go where the costs are the cheapest which means we either need to find a way to reverse that via peer pressure or via simple regulations like these:
1. It is OK to grow, raise or manufacture your products here in America and sell them to other countries and the same applies to those countries.
2. It is OK to open retail or manufacturing branches in other countries to offset the shipping problems as long as you hire the locals to work in those countries.
3. It is NOT OK to put the people in your country out of work, send the growing, raising or manufacturing to another country and then import those products back into your country.
I bring all of this up because that chart was used in a article that I prepared where I show that the majority of our cities get 75 percent or more of their income to run from property taxes.
Now if we will look at the spreadsheet in the following article, you will see where I lumped together the different categories of jobs, and I did that because I wanted to see where people would end up at as they were forced via layoffs, etc. from middle class.
http://keepamericaatwork.com/?p=208652
As you will see, if you are forced from the high paying jobs averaging $70,000.00 per year, your next lower level will see a average pay of $36,000.00 and your next and last best shot will see you in the $23,000.00 level
Now let's think about property values.
The only ones that can most likely afford homes greater than $200,000.00 are those in the $70,000.00 income group.
Those in the $36,000.00 and $23,000.00 groups most likely will not be able to buy a home worth much more than $200,000.00 and most likely will seek a home in the $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 level
In other words, if we continue to force our middle class to the lower classes by sending our jobs offshore, we eventually will see our property values lowered which means that they either need to substantially raise taxes to cover expenses, or they will end up cutting the bulk of the services provided via mass layoffs.
Being a realtor I've attempted to let the major organizations such as NAR (National Assoc. of Realtors) know, but they either do not want to see it or talk about it.
After ten years of research, the only options I see are to reverse the trends via peer pressure or by adopting those three regulations that I described above.
The general sway of this article evokes Galbraith's 'The Affluent Society' some fifty years ago. Of course, he recognised the importance of the 'corporation' as a provider of employment, and a source of growing affluence and living standards for the everyday American. Even as employers' and directors' bonuses continued to rise exponentially. What he felt was missing was a sense of collective responsibility for maintaining social and community standards.
Why don't we, as well as fining banks, impose a form of community service on them? They could be put in charge of a construction programme for a number of youth clubs, and meals-on-wheels services for the elderly and disabled. Their sponsorship of the scheme would be evident on all associated marketing material, boosting their relationship with the community. The review of their performance would be done through a ballot by those in receipt of the service, and other people living in the region.
I am far from defending the corrupt actions of those who run financial institutions. But trying to enforce a criminal charge against a corporation consisting of a complicated chain of commands is difficult. You cannot send the entire board of directors, the plant and the line manager, and any sub-contractors inadvertently responsible for safety violations, to prison for manslaughter through negligence. US prisons are already full to bursting - though admittedly some room could be made if you released those locked up for possessing small amounts of illegal substances.
As a legal entity, a company has to be treated differently from a single person - not in the sentence, but in the punishment enforced. But yes, more needs to be done to ensure that safety and preventive measures, against criminal malpractice, are properly enforced by regulators.
I couldn't help but think how timely this article was and it was updated with the HSBC results. I think Mexican drug cartels are responsible for about 13,000 murders per year. I linked to the original article about HSBC money laundering, actually two articles and it was brazen by the Senate study.
The profits from laundering drug money, which is estimated to be $1 trillion, launder about $2.6 trillion a year.
So, $1.9 billion is still chump change in comparison to the amount they laundered and the fees they collected.
That's about half of one quarter's profits for HSBC. Yet to find their profits from laundering but it's been going on for some time, so again, just kickback.
===============
If American REALLY wanted to tackle their deficit they would legalize pot, tax it at the federal level to pay down the debt and then SEIZE all Mexican drug cartels assets, globally and just say "they are ours". They would work a deal with the Mexican government later to give some of it back, but just those actions, plus the $1 trillion wasted fighting the "drug war" would pretty much put the deficit issue to rest.
Goes to show what a rigged system this all really is.
HSBC just reached a deal (or is about to). Will pay fine at $1 billion + for its business of money laundering. And the stock is up on the news. Again, how is aiding terrorism or drug trafficking by laundering criminal proceeds and then returning them to terrorists and drug traffickers not subject to federal conspiracy laws? How does that not make everyone involved a co-conspirator and accomplice to terrorist acts and drug trafficking along with subject to every other law the feds love (e.g., tax evasion, mail and wire fraud, lying to federal agents, using interstate communication devices to commit crimes, etc.)? How do people helping terrorists and drug traffickers not spend one day in jail or a year of probation or suffer job losses or any forfeiture acts or get bashed in the media? No need to answer. The speed with which these deals were wrapped up sure does establish justice is swift and easy for big banksters. There are people waiting for trials for a year on charges of one sale or one count of laundering money in amounts 1/10000 the amount these banks handled in state courts, so if you break the law and want sweet, easy justice, GO BIG and make sure you let your representatives and lobbying groups know what you're up to so they can help you out ASAP if needed. In fact, no need to expose yourself to public rage. Everything will be handled behind the scenes and your attorneys will appear in a public courtroom at the very end to admit something really vague so business can go on as usual. Seems only yesterday we had the S&L crisis, mortgage fraud, derivatives, FinCEN being set up solely to fight money laundering, gung-ho "follow the money" following 9/11 because the feds wanted to appear to care about terrorism financing. But every day it's shown who wields the power.
1. 2011 industrial engineers: 211,490
1999 industrial engineers: 155,910
a whopping gain over 12 years of 55,580.
During the same time period there have been around the same amount of BS industrial engineering degrees conferred to those with U.S. citizenship. That isn't counting the MS and PhD additional degrees.
2. Depends. These are by occupations, jobs titles. So a Physics PhD working as a quant in finance would probably be still classified as a statistician, which would be STEM or a mathematician, which would be STEM, mathematics, "other".
3. Since most of these are "young" one would have to go by education and again, U.S. universities are ranking the best in the world as a rule and the educational requirements are more in depth, longer, more credit hours. The U.S. also has more work experience with labs, projects, internships, co-ops, undergrad work at the University. Working in America previously, the U.S. is still considered the most advanced STEM industry in the world.
4. That is forced, a large part, then income is part of it. Wage arbitrage causes some to look elsewhere to a middle class income.
5. The fact you are even asking that says volumes. Heard of citizenship, of a domestic economy and the need for a nation-state to employ their citizens? That one of the primarily responsibilities of businesses inside a nation-state is to provide employment to the people who live in that nation-state?
1.) When you separate industrial engineers from generic engineering, what's the result?
2.) Do finance and consulting count as math jobs?
3.) Any statistics on the relative strength of resumes of Americans vs. foreigners?
4.) The large percentages of STEM workers who don't go into a related field, is that by choice or forced by unemployment?
5.) Why should a company hire an American as opposed to a foreigner?
Anyone noticing blocks moving around the site, beyond any real bother, let me know, this is just temporary. The site is in process of a MAJOR upgrade and the block moves today were all about getting one of our sponsored advertisers to display correctly.
The site upgrade layout won't look much like this at all in the end.
No fan of State AGs because most of them just as bad as fed "enforcement/regulation," but the NY AG and banking authorities back in the summer caused all the commotion when they finally couldn't sit idly by while Standard Chartered continued ignoring the rules and laws for almost a decade now regarding money laundering. Of course Wells Fargo and the other banks also love the money laundering - it's a money maker for all concerned. So what happened as this site and others showed this summer? Well, the Treasury, OFAC, FinCEN, DOJ, or whatever other useless agencies just couldn't have terrorism $ laundering banksters being treated like the citizens. Versailles protects its own, even if they are foreign nobility/banksters headquartered in the UK. So they squashed the NY authorities, got pissed at them (instead of banks aiding and abetting our enemies and compromising our security) and protected the banks with a sweetheart deal. Let me ask, if I can make tens of billions and only get fined millions, why shouldn't I break the law? Cost-benefit analysis says go ahead, break the law, make more money than following the law like suckers, and the feds will protect you. Especially when I can use the same money I just made from crime to help protect me - isn't that the very definition of corruption?
Notice how this story isn't covered on front pages anywhere. But CNN has stories on what it means to be "black" (WTF?) in America in 2012, gay marriages, the phone prank in UK/Australia, some football stories, etc. Now, our government and politicians helping business make $ and protecting them as they break laws and endanger us is important and shows how compromised we are by our "leaders" and govt., but you'd never know it by the stories they want us to care about. They have a ready stock of hundreds of stories that will fire up people because they have no real answers, play off emotions, divide people, and can be brought out in 1990 or 2000 or 2050, whenever they are needed to distract from the corporate criminals bankrolling them.
By the way, why do banks and other corporations even bother with the pretense of having compliance departments and general counsels? If you are honest and work there, you'd get fired. No one that cares will make it past computer screening in the first place. And the banks make money by purposely ignoring rules and regulations. So save the salaries, cut the entire compliance and legal staff, and have at it. In fact, get rid of the Treasury OFAC, FinCEN, DOJ (especially organized crime because if big banks aren't "organized crime," nothing is), and every other agency paying $50,000 - millions in the private sector. It's a waste, it's a joke, and we all know it.
"See something, say something" - the govt. doesn't care about anything except helping its corporate sponsors make more money for the people in the boardrooms at the expense of our financial and physical safety and welfare. Now act on that DHS. . .
When this article was published the deal wasn't officially announced, now it is.
Just outrageous considering their numerous violations and repeated violations.
Rules of the game - incorporate along with a few other people, conduct some legitimate business (although that doesn't have to generate profits, or even a majority of your business activities), break as many laws as you want, or to avoid any problems, write the laws yourself and have your paid-for-politicians adopt them directly, and reap those profits. If you don't generate profits, loot the company before you destroy it. You are a "job creator," after all, and that comes with privileges. Lobby and fund raise for international charities. In fact, name a charity after yourself or your corporation - no need to check your ego at the door, you are godlike, it's time to let everyone else know it. People with charities don't get in trouble with the law, how many CEOs and key donors are ever arrested or locked up in a real prison? If you get in trouble ever, despite lobbying Congress, your local, county, and state politicians, international groups such as the IMF, EU, World Bank, UN, etc., lobby the DOJ and your politicians harder.
Make sure your corporation's big law firm has a habit of hiring federal prosecutors and regulators and that federal prosecutors and regulators hire from those same law firms. Regular revolving door hiring policies ensure everyone gets along and no real enforcement, prosecution, or changes happen. Troublemakers aren't hired by the feds, and people that ask questions are exactly that. Adversarial justice and litigation is for the 99%, not the plutocratic big dogs in the boardrooms. Hire one or two feds on your staff directly and the illusion is even better. If they dare make waves (and who would if they want that big paycheck), show them the door. Opensecrets shows the lobbying that our govt. accepts. Who knew law enforcement agencies like the DOJ could actually be lobbied? Funny, everyday citizens surely aren't gaining access to the AG's office and meetings rooms. The DOJ and others will step in and claim federal preemption and supremacy over other agencies even though that's incorrect and states can prosecute criminal matters even when the Feds choose to or not to (still waiting for the NY AG to prosecute Corzine or anyone that had a victim he stole from live in their county or state - guess we'll keep waiting).
If you get called in for a hearing, make sure your PR and lobbying team has hundreds of secret meetings before you ever step into a chamber. Donate to their friends and families and give them sweet jobs in your corporation or in a friend's corporation. And when you appear, blame everything on underlings and claim "you forgot" and "mistakes were made by other people, changes will be made, but it's not the fault of the company or top people." Make sure you appear repeatedly on TV and radio to plead your case to people on your payroll. Repeat "job creator" and "uncertainty" 100+ times per media appearance and how the threat of facing law enforcement or regulatory enforcement might prevent you from building a new vacation home, and that might not create 100 here or in Tahiti. Wear your flag lapel pins at all times. After all, how can a bank CEO raise money for Iran or drug cartels or make $40 million + for doing exactly that if he's wearing a flag lapel pin and his interviewer is also wearing a flag lapel pin? People that wear flag lapel pins would never launder money for people that build IEDs or blow up buildings or cars or launch missiles against allies or run an entire country based on meth production, right? If they ask tough questions (i.e., questions off script), fire them and their producers for hiring people with a modicum of integrity. Continue collecting massive loot while paying fines less than 1% of the ill-gotten wealth. Never fear incarceration or forfeiture or a raised voice. Rinse and repeat.
**This is good for all crimes involving large corporations (in funds, not necessarily in number of legitimate business activities or number of employees). If you are a small Mom-and-Pop corporation incorporated solely to conduct legitimate business and avoid personal liability, forget this advice, you're screwed. Individuals, break the law, you're screwed. However, big enough and corrupt enough (sorry, "lobby" enough) the world is your oyster. Commit fraud on a massive scale in securities, banking, housing, or any other sector your heart desires across towns, counties, states, and nations, forge documents and bribe or intimidate witnesses, help arm criminals and rogue nations and launder their money, bribe here and overseas, destroy environments, break wage and labor laws, directly endanger the lives of those you employ (or your subcontractors' subs employ), skimp on safety, loot corporate $ at the expense of shareholders, eavesdrop on people to make more loot, hinder investigations, etc. You get the message. Now go rape and pillage big kleptocrats, we paid for it and pay for it every day the rule of law is shown for the farce it is.
No one seems to want to mention Marx though he was right-on in many of his observations about capitalism.
One thing that Marx was wrong about was that he allowed himself to believe that capitalism was somehow other than a short-time phenomenon.
It is my sense that by now it is clearly visible that 'democracy' is not the domain of people as a whole, but has--over a fairly long period of time (a thousand years or so) been seized by 'corporate interests', which began as a 'democracy for princes only'. This is how we came to the Magna Charta, which in due course became modified into parliamentary government.
Direct democracy has been avoided by government ever since human beings were excluded from their true hideaway, the wood or the forest. The forest has suffered from deforestation exercised by corporate entities for the thousand years mentioned above. The consequence is the desert, the urban landscape, which practices a kind of rhetorical 'democracy' that never works and will never work until we figure out how to return to life in the wood.
Personally, I believe the study of how to reform corporatism ridiculous, another attempt to escape facing reality by academics who have learned well the methods of stealth that have concealed stealing for so long so well.
We now have an official history of the $1 trillion coin idea and where it came from. This is assuredly true for we know many of our original posts magically appear elsewhere, the content, calculations uncredited.
Our apologizes for not getting it right on the coinage idea attribution.
Silicon Valley's dirty little secret, age bias is a new article out, so finally STEM institutionalized and endorsed age discrimination hits the MSM.
If we add up, from table A. the unemployed by duration of time, we get -392,000. Yet also from table A, the unemployed only dropped -229,000. What happened?
The first thing to know is these are separate series. The total unemployed are aggregate figures from 4 separate series and then are seasonally adjusted after aggregation.
The unemployed by duration are separate survey questions and data series and they are also seasonally adjusted as their own separate survey responses.
So, they don't always add.
When one looks at duration it often will not add to the drop in those unemployed. The reason is some moved from different time periods, i.e. those unemployed less than 5 weeks moved to those unemployed 5-14 weeks. Then some did obtain jobs, but others dropped out of the labor force and are no longer counted as employed or unemployed. They may have worked a short temporary job in the reference week, hence moved from long term unemployed to < 5 weeks doing some very short temporary job.
If one notices the civilian labor force overall dropped by the total employed and unemployed., -350,000. Yet if one notices those "not in the labor force" increased by the same amount as the drop in employed, unemployed and the growth in the civilian noninstitutional population, or 542,000.
So, the survey askes 60,000 households each month and those figures are then extrapolated to apply to the total U.S. population. In the CPS, the total unemployment and unemployment series are aggregated by independently adjusted components.
Since you are referencing the tables, if you pull up the complete report, also linked here at the top of this article then go down to about page 10, after table A and B
you will see "technical note" and then look under Seasonal adjustment and that's why these figures do not add.
Additionally, there is a funky little fact. If you look at part-time in the tables, that doesn't add up to table A either and the reason is one is asking is your job part-time while the other is asking did you work part-time hours in the survey reference week.
Good eye! The BLS employment report as are many government statistics are little mini jigsaw puzzles, it can get tricky and at least you're reading their statistical release!
it appears that the number of those jobless more than 27 weeks declined by a seasonally adjusted 216,000, from 5,002,000 in October to 4,786,000 in November; however, since those unemployed less than 5 weeks, 5 to 14 weeks, and 15 to 27 weeks also declined by an additional 176,000, the duration of employment numbers dont add up to the 229,000 less unemployed reported by the household survey...
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
what am i missing here?
Mr.Crown's ideas are oblivously reasonable to stakeholders. Thank you stating them. While you seem to be discussing on a policy level, an application came to my mind: That is, a formerly proposed "accounting" mechanism of a point-of-origin recycling principle. For example, an corporation utilizing coal in its production process, would automatically include the costs of recycling, or, neutralizing the harmful by-products, of coal, such as dust, sulfulic acid in the air, ...
Indeed, this re-cycling mandate could be costed into the R&D. Such technological information is probably already available, if adapted. Besides the element of coal, other ingredients of produced products could be recycled from the point-of-origin by embedding during the prod. process neutralizing organisms, or mechanical processes, that when the intended use of the product is completed, would netralize the toxicity of the product. Just thinking.
This is true, I ignored the L-1 Visa simply because obtaining valid statistics wasn't found, the same with TN-1 Visas. There are many foreign guest worker Visas being abused, use to labor arbitrage Americans, worker substitution, which are ignored for this article, including H-2B Visas.
L-1 Visas are "inter company transfer" Visas. A foreign parent company uses these Visas to send employees to a FCDC and employers, in particular Indian "body shops", abuse these extensively, you are correct. EPI just wrote an open letter on the abuses of L-1.
TN Visas are unlimited "professional" Visas from Mexico and Canada under NAFTA and are also heavily abused.
Another known highly conservative estimate in this article is the number of H-1B Visa holders working and in the country. That estimate is low simply because it was the lower bound of what could be statistically verified. The real number is probably double that amount.
The reason the estimates are low and many Visas are ignored is to ensure the statistics of this article are valid, cannot be argued with. Lobbyists spend millions trying to repress information that is contained in this post, as do other "special interest groups", the least of which is immigration attorneys who make a huge profit off of importing foreign workers.
As we've said, many, many times, Shadowstats does not publish their methodology, therefore we cannot validate those figures. Upon occasion we calculate out our own real unemployment rate from BLS data but we can never come up with the high figures Shadowstats does. It doesn't mean Shadowstats is invalid, but we cannot determine how those figures are derived, therefore we do not use them, for we only publish statistics we can validate.
Links are disabled for anonymous comments, please register and login to post links and to properly format them.
The NumbersUSA post is referring to this CIS study, Who Got Jobs During the Obama Presidency?.
I've read their study there is a huge problem. The BLS only counts those not born in the United States against those born within the borders of the U.S. Therefore, foreign born means children brought over by their parents at a very young age, it means naturalized citizens born outside of the United States, permanent residents (green cards) and the foreign born also includes foreign guest workers and illegal workers.
So, the CIS study classifies the foreign born as immigrants. This really isn't quite valid. I wouldn't call someone who was simply born outside of the United States an immigrant, especially if they are naturalized citizens or brought over as very young children. There is a huge difference between this group and say a L-1 Visa worker.
The problem is we need accurate labor statistics by immigration status, bottom line. Our government sticks their head in the sand and won't even determine the numbers. That's just wrong and so often we hear some philosophy of one cannot ask a worker's immigration status because it might "offend" them or "cause them to run back into the shadows". This is ridiculous, it's the U.S. labor market, the U.S. labor statistics and we need accurate data on what is going on, which in turn can influence policy.
Fairly obvious politicians in D.C. do not want this information known for it if was tabulated, one can imagine how fast most of America would be outraged, consider our never ending job crisis. Bottom line, statistical agencies are simply supposed to obtain the statistics and not impose a view or philosophy on those statistics.
It is one thing to know the facts, another to craft policy as a result of those facts. Let us simply know the real statistics, please. Write your Congressional representatives demanding immigration status be asked by the Census for our labor/employment surveys.
Beyond this flaw of the CIS study, I've looked over their data and it appears to be straight out of the BLS statistics, which is more than valid to simply tabulate those figures.
This is an interesting story on how Microsoft eventually is going down.
More interesting there is a pattern. Corporations hire H-1Bs, labor arbitrage their engineers, churn them, fire them and replace them with younger, cheaper ones.
Anyone else notice that eventually they lose market share, stop being a leader? I can think of a host of companies that labor arbitraged their engineers and then this happened, HP being the largest example. Lucent, Motorola, the list goes on and on.
Robert Oak,
I enjoyed reading your article and thought that, overall, it was excellent.
I would like to point out, however, that you have overlooked some important points. First, your article mentions the L-1 visa but once. Just once. Second, your article does not mention the TN-1 visa at all. Not even once. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it has been estimated that the number of L-1 visa holders in the USA is about six or seven times the number of H-1B visa holders. I wrote "estimated" because even the Federal government has no clue as to their number. Why? Because even the Federal government does not compile or maintain records on the number of L-1 visa holders currently living in the USA. Incredible, but true. Hence, the H-1B scandal is but "the tip of the iceberg." The actual number of visa holders is far greater than is commonly reported, making the scandal that much worse.
Relatedly, I would like to point out that the true unemployment rate in the USA is now about 23%:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
Finally, I feel compelled to add this:
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/november-1-2012/study-two-thirds...
-- Paul D. Bain
PaulBain@PObox.com
This is the best example I've seen so far in nearly 10 years of trying to figure out what happened.
Let me show you the "why"
http://keepamericaatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/resemblance.png
The chart above shows the Gross Private Investment portion of the GDP.
I was forced out of work in 2003.
You will notice that every time they quit investing in America we had major job losses.
Now let me show you the "Who"
http://keepamericaatwork.com/?p=208200
There are three "camps" described in that article.
Each of them believes that it is just good business sense to go where the costs are the cheapest which means we either need to find a way to reverse that via peer pressure or via simple regulations like these:
1. It is OK to grow, raise or manufacture your products here in America and sell them to other countries and the same applies to those countries.
2. It is OK to open retail or manufacturing branches in other countries to offset the shipping problems as long as you hire the locals to work in those countries.
3. It is NOT OK to put the people in your country out of work, send the growing, raising or manufacturing to another country and then import those products back into your country.
I bring all of this up because that chart was used in a article that I prepared where I show that the majority of our cities get 75 percent or more of their income to run from property taxes.
Now if we will look at the spreadsheet in the following article, you will see where I lumped together the different categories of jobs, and I did that because I wanted to see where people would end up at as they were forced via layoffs, etc. from middle class.
http://keepamericaatwork.com/?p=208652
As you will see, if you are forced from the high paying jobs averaging $70,000.00 per year, your next lower level will see a average pay of $36,000.00 and your next and last best shot will see you in the $23,000.00 level
Now let's think about property values.
The only ones that can most likely afford homes greater than $200,000.00 are those in the $70,000.00 income group.
Those in the $36,000.00 and $23,000.00 groups most likely will not be able to buy a home worth much more than $200,000.00 and most likely will seek a home in the $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 level
In other words, if we continue to force our middle class to the lower classes by sending our jobs offshore, we eventually will see our property values lowered which means that they either need to substantially raise taxes to cover expenses, or they will end up cutting the bulk of the services provided via mass layoffs.
Being a realtor I've attempted to let the major organizations such as NAR (National Assoc. of Realtors) know, but they either do not want to see it or talk about it.
After ten years of research, the only options I see are to reverse the trends via peer pressure or by adopting those three regulations that I described above.
Keep America At Work
Pages