Saturday, May 07, 2011
Where Are Jobs Going Now? Peru, Bulgaria, Bangladesh. . .
By DANNY KING
Take heart, America. Yours isn't the only country to lose jobs to developing nations.
Australia, Canada and Israel, among others, have dropped off the list of best places for information-technology and business-processing services, according to a report that research firm Gartner released Monday.
As more developing countries have created workforces that can handle those tasks at lower cost, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore and Spain are also no longer on Gartner's list of the 30 best countries for outsourcing, which considers both costs and skill sets.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Colombia, Peru and Mauritius have all joined the list for the first time, while Panama, Sri Lanka and Turkey reappeared after an absence during previous years. Those nations join South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, as well as the Asian powerhouses of China and India.
Competition for Outsourcing Grows
The changes reflect the growing trend of cost-cutting via outsourcing, which started with U.S. companies and spread to other parts of the world.
Countries such as Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica have created government programs that boost education and upgrade the domestic labor pool. China and Malaysia, among others, have improved their infrastructure to make them attractive to tech companies. And Brazil's relatively stable government status keeps the country attractive to many different types of companies.
"In this increasingly dynamic global environment, multinational providers will continue to extend their footprint in different geographies, carrying with them their expertise and maturity, while local providers will strive to become offshore providers, searching for opportunities and niches they can explore," Ian Marriott, research vice president at Gartner, said in a statement. "Even though some countries are rated poorly for some categories, clients may find individual providers -- global and local -- whose capabilities mitigate some of the risks."
Where Are the Jobs Going?
Increased outsourcing has hindered the U.S.'s economic recovery and may pose similar problems to other countries that have been bumped off the list.
In November, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.8% from 9.6% in October, with the U.S. private sector adding just 50,000 jobs -- about a third of what analysts had forecast. Additionally, the underemployment rate, which includes both the unemployed and those working part time who are seeking full-time jobs, remained flat at a staggering 17%, while the number of people out of work for at least six months increased to 6.3 million.
The threat of a similar "jobless recovery" means more could be at stake for countries, such as Canada and Israel that have fallen off the list.
"In the past four decades, American-born workers have faced greater and greater competition from robots, far-away foreigners, recent immigrants and microprocessors," wrote Edward Leamer, director of UCLA'S Anderson Forecast, in a presentation earlier this month. "Technology and international trade have fundamentally altered the demand for skills and have changed the business cycle dynamics."
Take heart, America. Yours isn't the only country to lose jobs to developing nations.
Australia, Canada and Israel, among others, have dropped off the list of best places for information-technology and business-processing services, according to a report that research firm Gartner released Monday.
As more developing countries have created workforces that can handle those tasks at lower cost, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore and Spain are also no longer on Gartner's list of the 30 best countries for outsourcing, which considers both costs and skill sets.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Colombia, Peru and Mauritius have all joined the list for the first time, while Panama, Sri Lanka and Turkey reappeared after an absence during previous years. Those nations join South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, as well as the Asian powerhouses of China and India.
Competition for Outsourcing Grows
The changes reflect the growing trend of cost-cutting via outsourcing, which started with U.S. companies and spread to other parts of the world.
Countries such as Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica have created government programs that boost education and upgrade the domestic labor pool. China and Malaysia, among others, have improved their infrastructure to make them attractive to tech companies. And Brazil's relatively stable government status keeps the country attractive to many different types of companies.
"In this increasingly dynamic global environment, multinational providers will continue to extend their footprint in different geographies, carrying with them their expertise and maturity, while local providers will strive to become offshore providers, searching for opportunities and niches they can explore," Ian Marriott, research vice president at Gartner, said in a statement. "Even though some countries are rated poorly for some categories, clients may find individual providers -- global and local -- whose capabilities mitigate some of the risks."
Where Are the Jobs Going?
Increased outsourcing has hindered the U.S.'s economic recovery and may pose similar problems to other countries that have been bumped off the list.
In November, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.8% from 9.6% in October, with the U.S. private sector adding just 50,000 jobs -- about a third of what analysts had forecast. Additionally, the underemployment rate, which includes both the unemployed and those working part time who are seeking full-time jobs, remained flat at a staggering 17%, while the number of people out of work for at least six months increased to 6.3 million.
The threat of a similar "jobless recovery" means more could be at stake for countries, such as Canada and Israel that have fallen off the list.
"In the past four decades, American-born workers have faced greater and greater competition from robots, far-away foreigners, recent immigrants and microprocessors," wrote Edward Leamer, director of UCLA'S Anderson Forecast, in a presentation earlier this month. "Technology and international trade have fundamentally altered the demand for skills and have changed the business cycle dynamics."
Labels: crooked politics, government, jobs, politicians, unemployment
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Bailout Costs Could Reach $24 Trillion
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (July 20) - The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a level of assistance equal to about one-third of the overall U.S. economy, a watchdog report said Monday.
Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.
The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.
The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives — the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face.
Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.
Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the actual cash outlay to date of all the programs cited by Barofsky is actually less than $2 trillion and said the maximum exposure estimate "is inflated in a number of ways."
The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.
Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds to expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.
Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for the fees and other costs that some of these programs charge and for the collateral that many of the programs require that participants provide.
For instance, Barofsky assigns $6.8 trillion in potential exposure to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac and the 12 federal home loan banks. However, losses of that magnitude would require every homeowner with a Fannie or Freddie guaranteed mortgage to default and the value of the homes drop to zero. And Barofsky concedes that the finance agency and Treasury are not entirely liable for Fannie and Freddie losses.
The total also includes $3.35 trillion for a Treasury program, announced in September, to back money market mutual funds. But the Treasury has capped its liability for that program at $50 billion.
"While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents 'potential exposure' associated with them," Treasury's Williams said.
In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability, but says the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican in the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that by not adopting Barofsky's recommendation, Treasury is contradicting President Barack Obama's vows to increase government accountability.
"I don't know how you can justify hiding from the American people how their tax dollars are being spent," Issa said.
Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is prepared to give Tuesday to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible," Barofsky said.
—
It's your money America. You need to be involved with what our government is doing with it. It won't get better until you do.
WASHINGTON (July 20) - The federal government has devoted $4.7 trillion to help the financial sector through its crisis, a level of assistance equal to about one-third of the overall U.S. economy, a watchdog report said Monday.
Under the worst of circumstances, the report said, the government's maximum exposure could total nearly $24 trillion, or $80,000 for every American.
The figures are part of a tough new quarterly report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, who accuses the Treasury Department of repeatedly failing to adopt recommendations aimed at making one component of the government financial rescue effort more accountable and transparent.
The $4.7 trillion commitment to the industry takes into account about 50 initiatives and programs set up since 2007 by the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve. Barofsky oversees one of the initiatives — the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Much of the government assistance is backed by collateral and Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the gross, not net, exposure that the government could face.
Because of declining participation in short-term loan programs and because some infusions of money have been repaid, the maximum amount actually spent has declined to a current outstanding balance of $3 trillion, Barofsky said.
Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the actual cash outlay to date of all the programs cited by Barofsky is actually less than $2 trillion and said the maximum exposure estimate "is inflated in a number of ways."
The agencies and the programs assisting the financial sector include a newly created Federal Housing Finance Agency, increased deposit insurance initiated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and 18 support programs created by the Fed under the special powers it can deploy to address a systemwide financial crisis.
Banks have cut back on their use of the Fed's emergency lending program as well as other programs to ease credit stresses. Given that, the Fed has reduced the amount it will lend to financial institutions under two programs and it has decided to let a program to support money market mutual funds to expire as currently scheduled at the end of October.
Barofsky's $23.7 trillion estimate represents the maximum exposure that the government would face if all eligible applicants requested the maximum assistance at the same time. It does not account for the fees and other costs that some of these programs charge and for the collateral that many of the programs require that participants provide.
For instance, Barofsky assigns $6.8 trillion in potential exposure to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae , Freddie Mac and the 12 federal home loan banks. However, losses of that magnitude would require every homeowner with a Fannie or Freddie guaranteed mortgage to default and the value of the homes drop to zero. And Barofsky concedes that the finance agency and Treasury are not entirely liable for Fannie and Freddie losses.
The total also includes $3.35 trillion for a Treasury program, announced in September, to back money market mutual funds. But the Treasury has capped its liability for that program at $50 billion.
"While quantity and quality of the assets backing all of these programs vary, ignoring that side of these programs misrepresents 'potential exposure' associated with them," Treasury's Williams said.
In his report, Barofsky says Treasury has accepted some of his recommendations for greater accountability, but says the department has not taken steps to require all TARP recipients to report on their actual use of funds. He said Treasury also should report the values of its investments in banks and other financial institutions, disclose the identity of borrowers under a nonrecourse loan program and disclose trading activity under a public-private investment fund.
Barofsky says Treasury's inaction means taxpayers have not been told what the financial institutions that have received assistance are doing with the money.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican in the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that by not adopting Barofsky's recommendation, Treasury is contradicting President Barack Obama's vows to increase government accountability.
"I don't know how you can justify hiding from the American people how their tax dollars are being spent," Issa said.
Barofsky's conclusion is contained in a quarterly report to Congress and in testimony he is prepared to give Tuesday to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"The very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible," Barofsky said.
—
It's your money America. You need to be involved with what our government is doing with it. It won't get better until you do.
Labels: government, policitcs, politicians
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Your Social Security
Your Social Security
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security
(FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security
(FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Labels: crooked politics, government, information on social security, politicians, politics, social security, taxes
Friday, March 14, 2008
SPRINGFIELD, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain charged Friday the Senate was ignoring the will of the people when it rejected a one-year moratorium on earmarks that he co-sponsored. Sen. John McCain of Arizona has long been a vocal critic of earmarks.
The Senate voted 71-29 against the ban late Thursday night.
There's only one place left in America that they don't get it," McCain told a town hall gathering outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, referring to Washington. "Pork-barrel spending is out of control and Americans want it stopped."
He said the result "is an interesting commentary on how the Congress and the Senate [are] disconnected from the American people." Watch more of McCain's comments »
McCain returned to the Senate for the first time in a month to cast his ballot for an issue that is one of his central themes on the campaign trail.
Of the 29 votes in favor of the measure, six were from Democrats, including rivals Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. McCain accused both Democrats of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in earmarks.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Don't Miss
"The first thing they can do if they're against the earmarks is ask that the money that they've gotten, the hundreds of millions they've gotten in pork-barrel projects, not be spent. A lot of that money's not spent," said McCain.
The Arizona senator prides himself on having never requested an earmark for his state.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent.
Approved earmarks are public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can come only from the legislators themselves. Watch the battle over earmark ban »
Clinton received $342 million in earmarks last year, ranking her 10th highest in the Senate, according to the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. But as of Thursday, the Clinton campaign had not released details on how much she requested for 2007 and what it was for.
The senator "is proud of the investments in New York she has secured," according to her spokesman, Philippe Reines. But she believes the one-year ban "will allow a hard look at how more sunlight and transparency can be brought to this process," Reines added.
Obama in fiscal year 2008 secured $98 million in funding for Illinois projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Information released Thursday by the Obama campaign indicates he requested $311 million in earmarks for the same year.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the Earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker's seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects "fail to address the real needs of our country."
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Last year, Congress approved 12,884 earmarks. While the budget watchdog group said that figure is down from an all-time high in 2005, it still represents more than $18 billion in spending.
I think this proves that politicians don't care about the taxpayers. They only care about themselves. Remember, we put them in Washington, we can take them out. Come on America, pay attention to what the people you voted for are doing.
The Senate voted 71-29 against the ban late Thursday night.
There's only one place left in America that they don't get it," McCain told a town hall gathering outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, referring to Washington. "Pork-barrel spending is out of control and Americans want it stopped."
He said the result "is an interesting commentary on how the Congress and the Senate [are] disconnected from the American people." Watch more of McCain's comments »
McCain returned to the Senate for the first time in a month to cast his ballot for an issue that is one of his central themes on the campaign trail.
Of the 29 votes in favor of the measure, six were from Democrats, including rivals Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. McCain accused both Democrats of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in earmarks.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Don't Miss
"The first thing they can do if they're against the earmarks is ask that the money that they've gotten, the hundreds of millions they've gotten in pork-barrel projects, not be spent. A lot of that money's not spent," said McCain.
The Arizona senator prides himself on having never requested an earmark for his state.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent.
Approved earmarks are public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can come only from the legislators themselves. Watch the battle over earmark ban »
Clinton received $342 million in earmarks last year, ranking her 10th highest in the Senate, according to the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. But as of Thursday, the Clinton campaign had not released details on how much she requested for 2007 and what it was for.
The senator "is proud of the investments in New York she has secured," according to her spokesman, Philippe Reines. But she believes the one-year ban "will allow a hard look at how more sunlight and transparency can be brought to this process," Reines added.
Obama in fiscal year 2008 secured $98 million in funding for Illinois projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Information released Thursday by the Obama campaign indicates he requested $311 million in earmarks for the same year.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the Earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker's seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects "fail to address the real needs of our country."
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Last year, Congress approved 12,884 earmarks. While the budget watchdog group said that figure is down from an all-time high in 2005, it still represents more than $18 billion in spending.
I think this proves that politicians don't care about the taxpayers. They only care about themselves. Remember, we put them in Washington, we can take them out. Come on America, pay attention to what the people you voted for are doing.
Labels: current eventw, current news, politicians, politics, Washington
