How much do teachers make in Seattle?
State Average $44,005
Starting Bachelor's $30,010
Starting Master's $37,990
How much do Trach Collectors make in Seattle?
Seattle Trash Collectors Make Average of $109,553 But Want More.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Where Will the Jobs Come From?
SALT LAKE CITY — McDonald's owner/operators in Utah, eastern Nevada and western Wyoming have pledged to hire up to 700 part-time crew and managers on Tuesday.
The company said people may apply from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. that day at any participating McDonald's. Applications also will be accepted at www.mcdonalds.com/careers or www.mcstate.com.
The event seeks workers for 20 hours a week or more. The benefits available to qualified part-time employees include access to McDonald's health and medical insurance plans, free meals, free uniforms, flexible schedules and support services.
The company has 5,765 employees in Utah.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Obama on Nationalization
As Paul Krugman notes, there are too many narratives for the Obama administration's bank policy. That there is more than one narrative is a sign of confusion and lack of clarity. The obvious plan, to a preponderance of economists, is to put the bad banks into some form of receivership, clean them up, and then sell them back to the public. That the Obama administration doesn't pursue this route is perplexing, especially given the convoluted plan (the Geithner plan) that is being follow instead.
Given a clear and precise path, why doesn't Obama choose it (add your favorite theory here and this is why there are so many narratives)? Obama addressed this question in a speech at Georgetown University:
The gist of Obama's argument against nationalization is to save taxpayers money and to avoid systemic risk. The problem is that it isn't bought by some of the big name economists, for good reasons. When you look at successful resolutions to similar economic/banking crisis in other countries, nowhere do you find anything resembling the Geithner plan. So the prominent economists have continued, even escalated, their dissent:
Given a clear and precise path, why doesn't Obama choose it (add your favorite theory here and this is why there are so many narratives)? Obama addressed this question in a speech at Georgetown University:
Now, on the other hand, there have been some who don't dispute that we need to shore up the banking system, but they suggest that we've been too timid in how we go about it. This is essentially the nationalization argument that some of you may have heard.
And the argument says that the federal government should have already preemptively stepped in and taken over major financial institutions the way that the FDIC currently intervenes in smaller banks, and that our failure -- my administration's failure to do so is yet another example of Washington coddling Wall Street.
OBAMA: "Why aren't you tougher on the banks?"
So let me be clear: The reason we have not taken this step has nothing to do with any ideological or political judgment we've made about government involvement in banks. It's certainly not because of any concern we have for the management and shareholders whose actions helped to cause this mess.
Rather, it's because we believe that preemptive government takeovers are likely to end up costing taxpayers even more in the end, and because it's more likely to undermine than create confidence.
Governments should practice the same principle as doctors: First, do no harm. So rest assured, we will do whatever is necessary to get credit flowing again, but we will do so in ways that minimize risks to taxpayers and to the broader economy.
The gist of Obama's argument against nationalization is to save taxpayers money and to avoid systemic risk. The problem is that it isn't bought by some of the big name economists, for good reasons. When you look at successful resolutions to similar economic/banking crisis in other countries, nowhere do you find anything resembling the Geithner plan. So the prominent economists have continued, even escalated, their dissent:
Bring In The Antitrust Division (On Banking) - Simon Johnson at Baseline Scenario
Ruminations on banking - Willem Buiter at FT
Stiglitz Says White House Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue - Joseph Stiglitz at Bloomberg
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Geithner's Plan
Geithner's Plan to resolve the banking problem is getting not so good reviews: Paul Krugman doesn't like it; Yves Smith doesn't like it; Calculated Risk doesn't like it; but Brad DeLong likes it - somewhat.
Are the banks insolvent or are they having a short term liquidity problem? It seems we need an answer to this question...
Geithner's Faustian bargain: - A guest post by Swedish Lex, this will get you in the right mental framework before reading the other opinions.
Geithner's Toxic Asset Plan: - Calculated Risk gives a very short description of the plan.
Despair over financial policy: - Paul Krugman - "It’s exactly the plan that was widely analyzed — and found wanting — a couple of weeks ago."...
More on the bank plan: - Paul Krugman - "Why was I so quick to condemn the Geithner plan? Because it’s not new; it’s just another version of an idea that keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. It’s basically a thinly disguised version of the same plan Henry Paulson announced way back in September."...
The Geithner Plan FAQ: - Brad DeLong answers some questions about the Geithner plan in this Q&A style post.
Brad DeLong's defense of Geithner: - Paul Krugman - "Brad gives it the old college try. But he shies away, I think, from the central issue: the non-recourse loans financing 85 percent of the purchases."...
Private Public Partnership Details Emerging: - Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism weighs in against the plan too.
Are the banks insolvent or are they having a short term liquidity problem? It seems we need an answer to this question...
Geithner's Faustian bargain: - A guest post by Swedish Lex, this will get you in the right mental framework before reading the other opinions.
Geithner's Toxic Asset Plan: - Calculated Risk gives a very short description of the plan.
Despair over financial policy: - Paul Krugman - "It’s exactly the plan that was widely analyzed — and found wanting — a couple of weeks ago."...
More on the bank plan: - Paul Krugman - "Why was I so quick to condemn the Geithner plan? Because it’s not new; it’s just another version of an idea that keeps coming up and keeps being refuted. It’s basically a thinly disguised version of the same plan Henry Paulson announced way back in September."...
The Geithner Plan FAQ: - Brad DeLong answers some questions about the Geithner plan in this Q&A style post.
Brad DeLong's defense of Geithner: - Paul Krugman - "Brad gives it the old college try. But he shies away, I think, from the central issue: the non-recourse loans financing 85 percent of the purchases."...
Private Public Partnership Details Emerging: - Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism weighs in against the plan too.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Fed Statement: We're going to buy long term Treasuries
The Fed announced today that it will buy up to 300 billion of long term treasuries over the next six months (full text here). Here's two articles that are pertinent to the Feds statement:
A bit more to worry about; foreign demand for long-term Treasuries has faded: - Brad Sester at Follow the Money. As the trade deficit narrows, surplus countries have less dollars to recycle into the U.S. at exactly the same time the U.S. needs more financing.
Caution On Quantitative Easing (QE):- Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker. This is a pretty scary scenario...
A bit more to worry about; foreign demand for long-term Treasuries has faded: - Brad Sester at Follow the Money. As the trade deficit narrows, surplus countries have less dollars to recycle into the U.S. at exactly the same time the U.S. needs more financing.
Caution On Quantitative Easing (QE):- Karl Denninger at The Market Ticker. This is a pretty scary scenario...
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Back to the Stimulus and Deficits Reality
A lot of people believe that if we could just get the banks to quite hoarding and start lending then we'll be off to the races again. While fixing the banks is important, vital, it is not the silver bullet "solution". Don't forget that a large part of the financial industry was obliterated - the "shadow banking system", which isn't coming back soon. That was a huge chunk of lending that will have to be replaced by something new. Also, and most important, GDP growth via borrowed money was yesterday's paradigm, and a big reason we're in this mess.
Another problem we're going to have is the output gap, the difference between potential GDP and actual GDP. The idea behind the stimulus package is for the government to (borrow and) spend and make up the difference, mitigating the ravages of a declining GDP. This may pose a serious problem if what is really in store is a demand re balance to a lower level - as Michael Pettis describes:
Optimism Abounds at the White House - Tim Duy sees the economy in free fall and doesn't think the stimulus is big enough: "I grow increasingly fearful that the pace of economic deterioration will leave the US economy in a much deeper hole than this Administration expected, swallowing the stimulus package."
Wolf Versus Pettis on US Stimulus, Fiscal Deficit - Martin Wolf comes to two conclusions: the stimulus needs to be much bigger; and the government will need to run huge deficits for a very long time.
Another problem we're going to have is the output gap, the difference between potential GDP and actual GDP. The idea behind the stimulus package is for the government to (borrow and) spend and make up the difference, mitigating the ravages of a declining GDP. This may pose a serious problem if what is really in store is a demand re balance to a lower level - as Michael Pettis describes:
There is a real need for an adjustment in consumption in the US, and I don’t think it makes sense for the US to attempt to replace excess household consumption with excess government consumption. One way or the other the US, along with China and most other countries that have contributed to one side or the other of the global imbalances, is going to have to accept a demand contraction.
Optimism Abounds at the White House - Tim Duy sees the economy in free fall and doesn't think the stimulus is big enough: "I grow increasingly fearful that the pace of economic deterioration will leave the US economy in a much deeper hole than this Administration expected, swallowing the stimulus package."
Wolf Versus Pettis on US Stimulus, Fiscal Deficit - Martin Wolf comes to two conclusions: the stimulus needs to be much bigger; and the government will need to run huge deficits for a very long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)