Milemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 948 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1727 times:
I am one of countless unemployed people who are doing everything they can to find work in this depressed economy. It's been since July since I've seen a paycheck & I'm exhausted from the endless job search. Every day I send my resume to at least 3 different companies and never hear anything. I just imagine blasting my resume off into space..
*whoosh*
Here in North Texas it's especially bad since Telecom is(was) such a major industry that employed tens of thousands.. Guess what industry I've been employed in? Now I'm competing with the tens of thousands of laid-off telecom/IT workers for the few lower paying jobs that still exist. Hell, I'm sending my resume off for positions that pay half of what I was making just 8 months ago. WEAK.
I just paid a firm $450.00+ to re-write my resume and cover letters as a last ditch effort to find ANYTHING.
So, now I've layed out my situation and concerns.. my question to all of you is what do you see for Q3 & Q4? 2004?? 2005?
This blows ass.. Well, there's always McDonald's.. Or is there?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28887 posts, RR: 67 Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1713 times:
Yes it will.
There is now what is being termed a liquidity bubble. A lot of money has left the markets and is being held as cash. This is because everybody is uncertain about the geo-economic environment, a lot of that is due to the Iraq thing. Because so much is being held in cash the market price of stocks has been decreasing. This is forcing company's to cut back and cause lay-offs, which decreases the amount of incoming cash to the economy, which reduces the demands for goods and services, which trigger more layoffs.
In many ways it is a viscous cycle.
investors hate uncertainty and fear it. Once they get a feel for how the Iraq thing is going to play out then investment is going to occur and the markets and business with improve.
That is why a quick war is in the best interest of the economy. Once that uncertainty is gone, you will see the economy pick up as people again invest and spend money.
Most downturns do end with some sort of major event. Not major as WWII ending the great depression but great enough.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Depends how the US$ goes, if it falls more then US goods become cheaper and
more competitive, create more jobs. Going on the war path is maybe good for
part of the US economy, but it creates a lot anti-americanism abroad, so people rather buy an expensive BMW than a Jeep Cherokee (because of German anti-war policy), which will hurt
US economy indirectly....
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Milemaster,
Let me first say that I wish you the best of luck. This is very rough patch in our contemporary economy history to put it mildly. I wish had some helpful advice but I do not.
I think L-188 is exactly correct. The economy has no chance of turning around until the question of war is resolved. This kind of uncertainty kills all risk-taking activity and thus all the benefits thereof.
In my armchair view of the economy, the fundamentals will turn around. There will be a growing economy sooner rather than too much later. Is that vague enough?
However, I think it will be at least 4 years before the stock market begins to resemble what we saw in the late 1990s. If you are about retire and your nest egg is in equities, my condolences.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28887 posts, RR: 67 Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Actually I think it will be longer then that before we see the previous levels of the stock market.
Prices where very inflated up until the tech sector colapsed. There was a "correction" predicted for a couple of years before the tech bubble burst and the accounting scandles of the last year.
Therefore I think that it will rebound but not to those record high levels of four years ago.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
No. The U.S. Economy will remain in the crapper forever. Never mind 200 plus years of trends that include high and low periods.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
For over 8 years in the 90's, everyone was asking "Is the economy ever going to slow down?" Economies are cyclical, and while politicians and presidents can have some effect on economies, a lot of it is just circumstances that are beyond political control.
There´s no quick war option, see the Russians and their "fast" campaign in Chechenya.
Really? Well, see the U.S. in 1991 in Iraq. Was that quick enough for you?
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
So how far did US/Nato troops go during the Kuwait war? Iraqi border I say! Sure a lot of missles and bombing,
but street fighting in Bagdad is a different story, ask the Russians about Grozny...
NormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
I hope so, and I think it will. I agree that when all this uncertainty about war comes to some sort of resolution, the economy will pick back up again.
And as much as I hate to say this... it might require a new president. Bush, in my opinion, has done both well and horribly. I admire his ability to stand by his convictions, but that's just not how politics work.
...And there are so many people preaching doom and gloom--improperly, by my estimation, but still they are preaching it. The economy is driven by expectation, and people 'expect' the economy to pick up once Bush is gone.
I guess my point is that the PR smear campaign against Bush has gone really well, but he could have played this Iraq thing a bit smarter anyway.
And at the end of the day, it's much more important to me to have a job I enjoy and some semblance of financial security than to prove some political point or establish the pre-eminence of my philisophical leanings.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
So how far did US/Nato troops go during the Kuwait war? Iraqi border I say!
People who say such things need to know what they're talking about first. I beg your pardon, but the U.S. troops invaded both Iraq and Kuwait from Saidi Arabia. http://www.desert-storm.com/War/chronology.html
In fact, U.S. troops invaded into Western Iraq, and swung eastward, to cut off Iraqi forces in northen Kuwait. They came within 150 miles south of Baghdad.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
First, it´s Saudi Arabia, 2ndly did the US troops enter mayor cities like Basra and Bagdad? No, urban warfare is deadly, ask any Russian tank-driver that entered Grozny and you see...
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
Also add that it´s 15th of March today, so summer is coming up, hot like hell
in the region, makes fighting more difficult, sandstorms can also be a problem....
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
First, Allesandro, a spelling error isn't important, and second, you said that U.S. troops didn't enter Iraq. They did. And when you were found to be wrong, you changed what you meant. Sorry, that doesn't work. You didn't say they didn't enter a city; you said they didn't enter Iraq. Stop trying to change things just to make yourself look smarter.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
I was job hunting in the first Bush-pression in 1991. I feel for ya.
Actually it might already be too late for Hopalong. I'm trying to think back to 1991, the year before the Presidential election, and King George I was finally scrambling to put together some sort of game plan to convince suburbia he felt their pain. It didn't work. By the summer of 92, some economic indicators had already bottomed out and were northbound again, but it was too late...Pappy had his chance.
After the election, The New Yorker reported that Republican Fed chairman Alan Greenspan felt George I had never been serious about dealing with "big picture" economic issues, and was far too controlled by monied special interests to do what needed to be done to stimulate the economy.
At any rate, Old Glory could be flying from the roofs of every one of Saddam's palaces tommorow and that still wouldn't mute the ominous danger of our history's largest federal deficit coupled with Hopalong's bizarre obsession with placating the far economic right and a collection of almost militia-esque no tax nuts.
Until the present collection of "charge-card" Republicans is packed up heading back to their colorless sprawly southern suburbs, I'd say no.....the economy is on "cool".
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
OK, where did you get the 150miles numbers from? Give me a reliable source,
not just any site. True that some US tanks been trashing around the desert, which
actually don´t got a clear border between Saudi-Arabia and Iraq. A lot of desert, not exactly like crossing a river like part of the border between the US and Mexico.
Milemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 948 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1320 times:
I certainly appreciate all the responses and views. The new Millenium has so far turned out to be pretty horrible in every way..
Top it all off with 9/11, the Columbia disaster, a dismal market, airlines going bust left & right - and all the drum beating over Iraq... BAD BAD BAD.
Not at all what I envisioned the year 2000 and beyond when I was a child. I thought we'd all be wearing silver jumsuits and driving hover cars into space by now... eating all our meals in pill form.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 45 Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Human nature, when the economy is going full speed, it's beyond comprehension that the good times will come to an end.
When the economy softens, it's beyond comprehension that times can ever be good again.
The economy will pick itself up and eventually slide down then pick up again, as has been said...it's cyclical.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28887 posts, RR: 67 Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
That 150 mile claim is accurate.
At least from all the guys that I used to know that where in the 101 Airborne.
They where the ones that where there. I belive it set some sort of record for the farthest penetration behind the lines by an Airborne force in a way. They where helicoptered in and then waited for the tanks to catch up.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 948 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
