Jobs vs. Disability

In June, more workers went on disability than got jobs.  What does that mean to you?  Well, the likelihood that Social Security will be bankrupt in the very near future.  Also, there isn't as much money circulating because being on disability means they aren't spending money on "luxury" items, such as automobiles, clothing, shoes, eating out, CDs or DVDs, etc.  There also isn't as much money going back into Social Security, State and Federal income taxes, and if these people lost their homes because of their decrease in income, that means less property taxes, and a glut of houses which affects neighbors, banks, realtors, cities, and counties.  With fewer people in the workforce and fewer dollars being pumped into the economy, Mr. or Ms. CEO will probably stop getting those multi-million dollar bonuses they've become accustomed to.

What the politicians aren't saying is that all of this - the lousy economy, the lack of jobs or lack of good-paying jobs, the increase of workers getting food stamps or going on disability - is all connected and is affecting EVERYTHING.  Whether workers aren't getting hired because of a lack of jobs, or more likely, ridiculous and discriminatory interviewing and/or hiring practices, it's now reaching crisis mode.

I realize that the economy and debt crisis is not necessarily completely the fault of companies' laying off workers or not hiring qualified workers because they didn't answer a question "correctly" or they wore too big of a diamond ring to the interview, but this is not just a fun little HR game anymore, it's a country-wide problem that could have long-term effects on our country and even the world.

Corporations Can Get Away With Murder

Lo and behold, I found yet another reason to bitch about Citi:  http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=17846187#.TtP_Ru2mNUc.email  Basically what this article says is that Citi committed crimes, Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission then came to some sort of agreement (e.g., payoff), and now the SEC is shielding the public from details of the firm's wrongdoing.

As if Citi doesn't make enough money gouging people with exhorbitant fees and interest rates that would make the Mafia blush, they also have to mislead investors in order to make even more obscene profits.

According to this article:  "U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said the public has a right to know what happens in cases that touch on "the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives." In such cases, the SEC has a responsibility to ensure that the truth emerges, he wrote."  Pretty amazing that the SEC would allege criminal activities and then run away with their tail between their legs; of course, they probably had a suitcase full of money to buffer any apprehensions they might have had about not forcing Citi to admit guilt or wrongdoing.

And as if that weren't enough to make one vomit every time one sees anything with the Citi logo, there's another article listing CEOs who are job killers, which I've posted previously, but this time with a video clip on Vikram Pandit's slide that reads: "Citigroup board gives Pandit a big raise." http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878  Warms the heart to know that Vikram is getting raises even as Citi is announcing projected layoffs to cut costs.  These stories of corporate greed, corruption, and malfeasance keep getting more and more frequent and more and more ludicrous.

Prophetic Post?

I hate to be a know-it-all, but back in July, I posted "Why Robots Are Better Employees Than Humans" and I prattled on about Citicorp, one of the many evil empires who gleefully accepted some of the free cash that was being liberally strewn about for the poor banks and corporations who were really hurting for funds.  Nevermind that these business were suffering due to poor management; don't confuse the issue with facts.  Citicorp, headed by Vikram Pandit, who also happens to be one of the top ten CEOs who are job killers (http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878&GT1=33002) has recently announced that is seeking to trim costs and is considering cutting about 1 percent of its work force or 3,000 (or more) workers.  http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Citigroup-considers-3-000-job-cuts-2273202.php  Aren't we glad that they got some of our hard-earned tax money in that gigantic bailout that was meant to not only keep the companies afloat but to help them grow and create jobs?  Heaven forbid that Vikram should have to eat anything lesser than lobsters caught near Fourchu and flown fresh to whichever home he happens to be at (depending on the season, of course).

I wonder how many other companies who received bailout money have been or are planning on getting rid of employees ostensibly in the interest of cutting costs.  And in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie scandal where millions have been paid out in bonuses so these companies can retain "talent," my question is:  Why do these big-wigs not have to earn their millions in salary and bonus BEFORE the salary and bonuses are paid?  Why do they not have to save the companies prior to getting compensation since that's what they were hired to do?  And if the companies go under, or don't do as well as they should have, why should this "talent" get paid at all?  What does a CEO really do that is so special to warrant earning 6- or 7-figure salaries and bonuses?  I've never seen a CEO or CIO or executive of any kind actually roll up their sleeves and participate in anything except meetings or news releases or, at worst, "sexting" subordinates while they're sitting in their office and arranging to meet for an afternoon tryst.

The Occupy Wall Street protest was inevitable when people who have lost touch with reality and have nothing to lose treat their subordinates like pawns in a terrible game.