Austan Goolsbee has replaced Christina Rohmer as the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

I was on a panel at the SALT Conference with him (and Bill Thomas of the FCIC), discussing bailouts, economics, stimulus, taxes. In addition to the hour on stage, our small group spent another 45 minutes backstage chatting.

I came away very impressed with him — very smart guy, logical, lots of common sense with a good sense of humor. I didn’t sense was a hard core partisan, but he is definitely not a Supply Sider.

Its a good appointment — and regular readers know I have been none too impressed with Obama’s prior economic appointments.

I only hope that he looks outside of the mainstream crowd of economists, who have done an awful job over the past decade analyzing, understanding  and anticipating the present. They over-estimated job creation in the 2000s,  under-estimated the impact of deregulation/derivatives/subprime, and missed not one but 3 of the biggest bubbles in mankind’s history: The Tech Crash, the Credit bubble, and the most recent market collapse.

A little outside the box thinking will go along way . . .

Category: Bailouts, Economy, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

32 Responses to “Congrats to Austan Goolsbee”

  1. FrancoisT says:

    No a Supply Sider?

    That change I can believe in! ;-)

  2. curbyourrisk says:

    Sorry Barry… He is a Yale graduate and a member of Skull and Bones.

    That is all I need to hear.

  3. Niskyboy says:

    Barry, I think you’re being had. He may not be a supply-sider, but what he is, is a liar. Remember the NAFTA flap during the presidential campaign? (see Canadian officals named Goolsbee specifically as the Obama representative who told them to ignore what Obama was saying in the U.S. about NAFTA.

    His willingness to parrot whatever line his boss wants him to is bad enough. But when you couple that with govt. statistics increasingly unfettered from reality (e.g. last week’s “guesstimated” initial jobless claims), and with out-and-out B.S. on many other fronts (e.g. the cost of universal health care), it is difficult to place any trust in this team. Goolsbee may be a smart guy but since when did that over-ride a person’s character?

  4. You need to understand what the hearsay rule is –

    What you have actually said is you believe party X over party Y, without giving any justificiation.

    That is insufficient in my book . . .

  5. Niskyboy says:

    I do believe the hearsay, but that’s a fair point, since I wasn’t there myself. How about this, then: let’s see what comes out of the guy’s mouth over the next year or two, assess it versus economic conditions, and then see who’s right?

  6. dc20008 says:

    All I know is he is pretty darn hot looking.

  7. Sechel says:

    The article that circulated about him supporting subprime lending as enabling more people to buy homes(I believe it ws posted on C.R. suggests he may not be the best person here.

  8. vanillasplice says:


    I agree 100%. I think BR’s way off the mark here. By the way, here’s Tanta’s remarks:

  9. IS_LM says:

    Unfortunately, since the days of Clinton, the NEC has had more influence than the CEA. Goolsbee may play a more influential role if he can get his thoughts and opinions to the President directly rather than have them filtered through Larry Summers’ warped prism. I trust Goolsbee’s role in the campaign will provide him the avenue to do so.

  10. clove says:

    I’m a big fan of the Goolsbee appointment. He’s the most realistic economic adviser any white house has had in a generation. Of course, he doesn’t bat 1.000, but he is very aware of the realities in the world. I was very disappointed when he was stuck in the closet after Obama nominated the first team of economic advisers. Larry Summers is not what I’d call a good economist. Just a squeaky wheel.

  11. AHodge says:

    I like him
    at a tax conf he laid out some rules for effective bailouts. I pointed out that the tax loss carryback extension from 2yrs to 5 years broke them. He honest enough to admit to audience he had supported at the time, but thinks now probably not a good idea.
    As by reports he has privately countered geithner/ sommers and the other wall st stooges and asked for more reform incl Volcker rule, lets hope he not kicked upstairs. A lot of that CEA job is relentless spin and PR, more than helping direct?

  12. DL says:

    If Obama is willing to listen to even half of what Goolsbee has to say, we’ll all be better off.

    But for Obama, it’s all about throwing money at labor unions, and pleasing the Pelosi wing of the party.

    Obama has no interest in producing economic growth.

  13. Sechel says:

    Well, have to agree Goolsbee is better than Summers. Supposedly Goolsbee was supportive of Volcker having a larger role, so guess it’s hope for the best.

  14. clawback says:

    I’ve followed the bailouts and their aftermath assiduously for two years. It’s been two years (more if you count the Bear/JPM bailout), and not one of the key players has been held responsible. Clearly the buck stops nowhere.

    What does this have to do with Goolsbee? Well, at this point in time, even if he were the second coming of Jesus Christ (or of Barack Obama), there isn’t much he could do to rectify the failed policies and approaches of the past two to three years. (Note well: this includes Bush and Co. as much as Obama and friends.)

    Rather than actually spend the effort to care about Goolsbee, I’m going to go with default cynicism and assume the worst. He can surprise to the upside, but the trend says Hope and Change — NOT. Moreover, I think assuming the worst is more practical than dealing with the nuances of whether Goolsbee is a total hack or whether he’s just a part-time hack or whatever. The past two years have shown that giving people like Goolsbee (or Obama or Bush or Paulson…) the benefit of the doubt only encourages and enables them. I’m not going to be doing that.

  15. TennesseeCPA says:

    dc2008: Hot was never mentioned in the same sentence with Christina Romer. Now if Goolsby can heat up the jobs market.

  16. curbyourrisk says:

    Nothing can heat up the jobs market. Don;t you people get it??? We were in an employment bubble. By shipping out real JOBS, we filled them with bullshit jobs. Now we don;t need them anymore. The jobs disappearing now are gone and never coming back. Go read what Karl Denninger has said about salary and environmental tarriffs on foreign companies….. We do something like that….jobs will reappear real quickly here.

  17. Rod says:

    I’m puzzled, he teaches at Chicago University, School of Business. In my book the most dangerous and dog-matic school of economics in the world, and the evidence is clear after the year 2008.

    See what this economists with their maximum figure (Milton Fridman) did in Chile under the Pinochet era, a country with one of the most unequal distribution of income. The Chicago Boys call it “progress”.

    Search for coefficient GINI. You can also see that the US is not doing better, under this measure.

  18. Employment Bubble? WTF is THAT ?!?

  19. willid3 says:

    not sure we need a tax on offshore labor, just remove the tax credit for it for both the customer and the provider. and it doesn’t matter if the provider is a US company or not. there is only a 15% difference in the cost of local labor and offshore labor when you account for every thing that companies have to do to deal with offshore labor. remove the tax credit for any all costs and jobs will reappear unless business wants to stop doing business

  20. JSchmid says:

    I am curious how many people think Obama’s economic advisors won the argument on what the stimulus money should be spent on or if Obama’s other advisors won that argument! If you think the almost Trillion dollar Stimulus bill was designed by economic advisors, should they all be replaced?

  21. Sechel says:

    I was not really in favor of stimulus but if we did have it , I would want it invested in
    electric power grid
    modern rail system
    bridges & tunnels
    nuclear power plants

    in that order….

  22. soulmatic09 says:

    I like him too.

    Romer wasn’t a slouch either, but Goolsbee seems the type to throw a punch, which is sorely needed right now. Hopefully, one of them will hit Summers or Turbo Tim.

  23. Neil C Denver says:

    Back in the 1930s, most stimulus (Supply Side) money was spent on products made in the USA. However, today’s money is likely to be spent on products made overseas. Wouldn’t that effectively help their economies as much or more so than our own?

    Any thoughts and data would be greatly appreciated.

  24. TakBak04 says:

    Congrats, too.. I hope he will work out…but

    There’s this WIKI STUFF…and I realize WIKI does have problems…but we still need to be “cautionary” on Geithner…….because he was so close in growing up with …connections in “HIGH PLACES.”

    He might be a “Fine Fellow” and just what our Economy Needs for JUMP START and his “Past” should be “buried in a box” because OPPOSITION will USE AGAINST HIM…but there are some niggling worries about him and his background that some of us might find need to be put out there. Because we don’t want to cover up stuff and not give some opposition.

    I trust much of your opinion, BR…but CAUTION is the WORD…these days…

    But, I wish him well……..


    Just Saying:


    Geithner was born in Brooklyn, New York to his parents, but spent most of his childhood in other countries, including present-day Zimbabwe, Zambia, India, and Thailand where he completed high school at the International School Bangkok.[4] He attended Dartmouth College, in the tradition of his father and paternal grandfather, graduating with an A.B. in government and Asian studies in 1983.[4] In the process he studied Mandarin at Peking University in 1981 and at Beijing Normal University in 1982.[5] He earned an M.A. in international economics and East Asian studies from Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in 1985.[4][6] He has studied Chinese[4] and Japanese.[7]

    Geithner’s paternal grandfather, Paul Herman Geithner (1902–1972), emigrated with his parents from the German town of Zeulenroda to Philadelphia in 1908.[8] His father, Peter F. Geithner, was the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York in the 1990s. During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation’s microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham Soetoro, President Barack Obama’s mother, and they met in person at least once.[9] Timothy Geithner’s mother, Deborah Moore Geithner, is a pianist and piano teacher in Larchmont, New York where his parents currently reside. Geithner’s maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and served as Vice President of Public Relations from 1952-1964 for Ford Motor Company.[10]

    [edit][b]Early career[/b]

    Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates in Washington for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as an attaché at the Embassy of the United States in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995–1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996–1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998).[6]

    He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998–2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.[6] Summers was his mentor,[11][12] but other sources call him a Rubin protégé.[12][13][14]

    Treasury Secretary designee Geithner meets Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus on November 25, 2008

    In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department.[15] He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001–2003) at the International Monetary Fund.[6]

    In October 2003 at age 42,[16] he was named president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[17] His salary in 2007 was $398,200.[18] As President of the New York Fed, he served as Vice Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee. In 2006, he also became a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.[19] In May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.[16] In November he rejected Sanford Weill’s offer to take over as Citigroup’s chief executive.[16]

    In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns.;[11][20] In the same year, he played a supporting role to Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. Some Wall Street CEOs subsequently expressed the opinion that decisions in which Geithner participated, especially the failure to rescue Lehman, contributed to worsening the global financial crisis.[21] As a Treasury official, he helped manage multiple international crises of the 1990s[13] in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand.[14]

    Geithner believes along with Henry Paulson, that the United States Department of the Treasury needs new authority to experiment with responses to the financial crisis of 2007–2010.[11] Paulson has described Geithner as “[a] very unusually talented young man…[who] understands government and understands markets.”[20]
    [edit] Secretary of the Treasury nomination
    Main article: Confirmations of Barack Obama’s Cabinet

    On November 24, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.[22][23]
    [edit] China
    Wikinews has related news: Obama’s choice for Treasury issues warning on China

    Geithner and the Obama administration appeared to adopt a somewhat confrontational stance towards China’s economic policies during the campaign and the nominal period.[citation needed] Geithner, in written comments to the Senate Finance Committee, states that the new administration believes Beijing is “manipulating” its currency and that the Obama administration will act “aggressively” using “all the diplomatic avenues” to change China’s currency practices.[24] The Obama administration would pressure China diplomatically to change this practice,[24] more strongly than the George W. Bush Administration did.[25] The United States maintains that China’s actions hurt American businesses and contributed to the financial crisis.[26]
    [edit] Personal tax issues

    At the Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for the years 2001–2004.[27] The International Monetary Fund (IMF), an international agency and his employer during the time in question, did not withhold FICA taxes, but instead reimbursed the usual employer responsibility of 50% of these taxes to employees who were subject to the taxes. Geithner had received the reimbursements, and paid the amounts received to the government, but had not paid the other 50% which would normally have been withheld from his pay. This failure to pay was noted during a 2006 audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in which Geithner was assessed additional taxes of $14,847 for the 2003 and 2004 tax years. The statute of limitations had expired for 2001 and 2002, and Geithner did not file amended returns or pay the additional amounts due for those years until after Obama expressed his intent to nominate Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury.[28][29][30] He also deducted the cost of his children’s sleep-away camp as a dependent care expense, when only expenses for day care are eligible for the deduction.[30] Geithner subsequently paid the IRS the additional taxes owed,[31] and was charged $15,000 interest, but was not fined for late payment.[32]

    In a statement to the Senate Finance Committee, Geithner called the tax issues “careless”, “avoidable” and “unintentional” errors, and he said he wanted to “apologize to the committee for putting you in the position of having to spend so much time on these issues”.[31] Geithner testified that he used TurboTax to prepare his 2001 return, but that the tax errors were his own responsibility.[33][34] The Obama campaign stated that Geithner was advised by his accountant that he did not owe any taxes beyond those assessed by the IRS following the 2006 audit.[35] Geithner said at the hearing that he had always believed he was an employee, not a self-employed contractor, while serving at the IMF.[36]
    [edit] Confirmation

    Geithner is sworn in as Treasury Secretary

    On January 26, 2009, the U.S. Senate confirmed Geithner’s appointment by a vote of 60–34.[37][38] Geithner was sworn in as Treasury Secretary by Vice President Joe Biden and witnessed by President Barack Obama.[39]
    [edit] Secretary of the Treasury
    [edit] Bank bailout

    Geithner speaking at the United States Department of Treasury.

    Geithner has the authority to decide what to do with the second tranche of $350 billion from the $700 billion banking bailout bill passed by Congress in October 2008. He is not mandated to seek Congressional approval, but went to Congress on February 10–11, 2009 to explain his plans. He proposes to create one or more “bad banks” to buy and hold toxic assets, using a mix of taxpayer and private money. He also proposes to expand a lending program that would spend as much as $1 trillion to cover the decline in the issuance of securities backed by consumer loans. He further proposes to give banks new infusions of capital with which to lend. In exchange, banks would have to cut the salaries and perks of their executives and sharply limit dividends and corporate acquisitions.[40][41] The plan has been criticized by Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman[42] as well as fellow Nobel laureate and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz.[43]
    [edit] AIG bonuses
    Main article: AIG bonus payments controversy

    Although President Obama expressed strong support for Geithner, the outrage over the AIG bonuses has undermined public support. AIG paid bonuses to executives in its Financial Services division after receiving more than $170 billion in federal bailout aid.[44] Even prior to the election, senior aides to Timothy Geithner have closely dealt with American International Group Inc. on compensation issues including bonuses, both from his time as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and as Treasury secretary. In early November, 2008, a committee concluded that the bonuses, which were in contracts signed before the government takeover, couldn’t be legally blocked. On March 3, 2009, appearing at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat, asked him about the bonuses that AIG would be paying to financial-products employees “in the coming weeks.” On March 11, Geithner called Mr. Edward Liddy, AIG chief, to protest the bonus payouts. Mr. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke attended a hearing by Congress on March 24, 2009.[45]
    [edit] AIG payments to banks

    In November 2009, Neil Barofsky, the Treasury Department Inspector General responsible for oversight of TARP funds, issued a report critical of the use of $62.1 billion of government funds to redeem derivative contracts held by several large banks which AIG had insured against losses. The banks received face value for the contracts although their market value at the time was much lower. In the report, Barofsky said the payments “provided [the banks] with tens of billions of dollars they likely would have not otherwise received”. Terms for use of the funds had been negotiated with the New York Federal Reserve Bank while Geithner was president.

    In January 2010, Rep. Darrell Issa released a series of e-mails between AIG and the New York Fed. In these e-mails, the Fed urged AIG not to disclose the full details of the payments publicly or in its SEC filings. Issa pushed for an investigation of the matter, and for records and e-mails from the Fed to be subpoenaed. Rep. Edolphus Towns, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, issued subpoenas for the records and scheduled hearings for late January. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed would welcome a full review of its actions regarding the AIG payments.[46][47][48][49]

    Geithner and his predecessor, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, both appeared before the Committee on January 27. Geithner defended the bailout of AIG and the payments to the banks, while reiterating previous denials of any involvement in efforts to withhold details of the transactions. His testimony was met with skepticism and angry disagreement by House members of both parties.[50][51][52][53]
    [edit] [b]China[/b]

    Geithner with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the opening session of the first U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue on July 27, 2009.

    Shortly after assuming his role as Secretary of the Treasury, Geithner met in Washington with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. He told Yang that the U.S. attached great importance to its relations with China and that U.S.–China cooperation was essential in order for the world economy to fully recover.[54]

    On June 1, 2009, during a question-and-answer session following a speech at Peking University, Geithner was asked by a student whether Chinese investments in U.S. Treasury debt were safe. His reply that they were “very safe” drew laughter from the audience.[55][56]

    Geithner co-chaired the high-profile U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue from July 27 to 28 in Washington, DC and led the Economic Track for the U.S. side.
    [edit] Opposing extension of tax cuts

    In summer, 2010, Geithner “is President Obama’s point man in opposing the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy after their Dec. 31 expiration. … [Geithner] has cited the projected $700 billion, 10-year cost of the tax cuts, and nonpartisan analyses that they do not stimulate the economy because the wealthy tend to save the additional money rather than spend it. ‘I believe there is no credible argument to be made that the purpose of government is to borrow from future generations of Americans to finance an extension of tax cuts for the top 2 percent,’ [he] said in a recent speech.” This initiative also injects of more populist tone into his policy portfolio, in line with the Administration’s inclination.[57]
    [edit[b] Criticism[/b]

    Geithner weathered criticism early in the Obama presidency, when Republican Rep. Connie Mack of Florida suggested he should resign over the AIG bonus scandal and Alabama Senator Richard Shelby said that Geithner was “out of the loop”. Democrats largely joined Obama in supporting Geithner, and there was no serious talk of him losing his job.[58]

    In November, 2009, Geithner again came under fire from members of both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Republican Party. Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio suggested that both Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, should be fired in order to curtail unemployment and signal a new direction for the Obama administration’s fiscal policy. “We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street,” said DeFazio, speaking for himself and some fellow members of the Progressive Caucus.[59] When Geithner appeared in front of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, the ranking House Republican, Kevin Brady of Texas, said to the secretary, “Conservatives agree that, as point person, you’ve failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well. Poll after poll shows the public has lost confidence in this president’s ability to handle the economy. For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?” Geithner defended his record, suggesting Brady was misrepresenting the situation and overestimating popular disapproval of his job performance.[60]
    [edit] Misunderstanding

    With his predecessor and so many other past and present government officials having been alumni of Goldman Sachs, Geithner has often mistakenly been considered to have also worked at the bank at some point in his career.[57]
    [edit] Family

    Geithner married Carole Sonnenfeld on June 8, 1985, at his parents’ summer home in Orleans, Massachusetts. She was working as a research associate for Common Cause at the time. Her father, Albert Sonnenfeld, was a professor of French and comparative literature at Princeton University, and her mother, Portia Sonnenfeld, was the conductor of the Chamber Symphony of Princeton.[61] They have two children, a daughter and a son.[62]
    [edit] See also

    * List of U.S. political appointments that crossed party lines

    [edit] Memberships

    * Center for Global Development (Board of Directors)[63]
    * Council on Foreign Relations[15]
    * Economic Club of New York (trustee)[63]
    * Bank for International Settlements, Committee on payment and settlement systems (chairman) [6]
    * Bilderberg Group

  25. TakBak04 says:

    Oh DAMN IT! My posts always come out TOO LONG here.

    BR…Please have your Blog Gremlins EDIT THIS POST! I apologize.

    I wish you’d install and “EDIT BUTTON.”



  26. postmodernprimate says:

    DL Says:
    “But for Obama, it’s all about throwing money at labor unions, and pleasing the Pelosi wing of the party.”

    Unless there’s an International Brotherhood of Rent Seeking Financial Engineers (IBRSFE) then Obama & the DLC’s love for organized labor is being greatly exaggerated.

  27. subscriptionblocker says:

    Don’t know much about him, but have seen a few of his appearances and he comes off well. Not the typical self kissing actors we normally must endure in DC.

    My hunch. He’d take a bullet to his career if he thought it was the right thing for the country.

    Perhaps wrong – but sincere wrong. Not looking to make DC his home town.

  28. constantnormal says:

    @BR … And you are basing your assessment on an hour and 45 minutes with this guy?

    I recall a pithy comment Yves Smith emitted following one of the Treasury Dept meeting-of-the-minds sessions with invited econobloggers, in which Secretary Geithner dropped in and charmed them all for a while. She said “Geithner gives good meeting”.

    These people are the sharks in the shark-infested cesspool that is the swamp of the Potomac. They have trained their entire lives to read others from only a brief meeting, and comport themselves in such a way as to elicit favorable impressions. You may recall another academician, from Princeton, who barnstormed the nation in his quest to be re-appointed as Fed chairman. These dogmatic academicians tend to say and present whatever image is required to put themselves in positions where they want to be. In this they are no different from the career politicians. And the key thing to remember is that this IN NO WAY BINDS OR CONSTRAINS THEIR SUBSEQUENT BEHAVIOR.

    So hope for the best, but watch your friend like a hawk. Remember that Obama selected his cabinet and economic team very carefully, as do all presidents. They all build their own bubbles of staff and advisors to govern in certain ways, and still preserve the maximum level of deniability. That’s why Dubya picked Cheney as his VP, and Rumsfeld, and the rest of his bubble. And Obama has done the same. This is NO ACCIDENT, these organizations are carefully constructed to govern in the manner than the president desires. Remember, he can always fire any one of them, at any time, so you can have some confidence that they are doing his bidding.

    This is why we received no health care reform, and no financial reform, and our level of military adventurism/nation-building remains constant, regardless of everything Obama promised or implied with his Change You Can Believe In. We are on course for the third term of Dubya, which is to say that the lobbyists representing the true owners and operators of the USofA remain in charge.

    And it is to my shame and disgrace that I was suckered in by the pitch, and voted for the guy. Fool me once …

    Trust, but verify.

  29. wkevinw says:

    Yep, this guy singularly distinguished himself. This is too much weight (below) to avoid sinking his ship. He might be fun to have a beer with, but looks like he’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. As I saw stated somewhere else, all these ivy league types and their views/actions on the economy are proof that educational dollars can be poorly spent at the “best” schools.


    vanillasplice Says:
    September 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pm


    I agree 100%. I think BR’s way off the mark here. By the way, here’s Tanta’s remarks:

  30. curbyourrisk says:


    I had written about what I called an emplyment bubble back in 2006 here at work. I talked about how Companies were holding on to people that they did not need. As far as I was concerned I assumed 5% of the work force was NOT NEEDED and dead wood within a company. Theses were the people who gave there time and were not ready to retire. Companies let them hang around the last few eyers, because profits were good and they would find places to stick them. When I wrote about this my company did not like the idea of it, as I work for a Japanese American company and they pretty much do things like this all the time. It was a direct shot at them and all comapnies that do this. You might not agree, nor would a lot of people….but as far as I was concerned…5% is A LOT of people and I considered it an employment bubble.

    Enter the recession (which we are still in, and I venture to call it a depression). All these jobs that were dead wood….guess what? They were the first to go….. AND THE RESULT???? Leaner costs with NO PRODUCTION slow downs. The American companeis (which still produced here) did not lose a step witht he first round of lay offs. y neighbor was a quality control manager with a Fortune 500 company. I always told him his job was not necessary as EVERY unit had one. They took the 8 unit managers and kept the one with the shortest tenure. The rest of them were shown the door. Did they ever need 8 managers??? OBVIOUSLY NOT. This is what I meant by an Employment bubble. People working who did not need to be employed (from a corporations view). You are fine to disagree with me and what I might call it, but when I wrote about this 2006… sounded good to me and my company liked the analysis…just not the way I weant about targeting it.


  31. curbyourrisk says:

    I guess BR did not get my posting…..Oh well. Wanted to answer him anyway.