A "choose 'em up" otherwise known as the NFL Draft was held this past weekend. Only the above average fan likely knew. But, I would guess that the greater Detroit area if not the entire state of Michigan was left scratching their heads after the beleaguered Lions, a team that did not win a single game last season inked their first round draft pick, Matthew Stafford, a quarterback from Georgia, to a contract worth $42M guaranteed. In these economic times, in a city and a state that reportedly has been hit the hardest - Auto industry bailouts, GM drops Pontiac, Chrysler on the verge of filing bankruptcy, home foreclosures and layoffs combined - the Detroit Lions organization apparently hasn't been effected, nor do they recognize the message they are sending.
In 2007, in the same "choose 'em up", the Oakland Raiders selected Jamarcus Russell, a quarterback from LSU, with the number one pick. Jamarcus' contract was for $31.5M guaranteed. In 2008, in the same "choose 'em up", the Miami Dolphins selected Jake Long (Howie's kid), a tackle from Michigan with their number one pick. Jake's contract was for $30M guaranteed.
With that history, in a city and state where the economy has been hit the hardest, and at a time when spending ridiculous amounts of money in a public forum is frowned upon as wasteful and disrespectful to those who are suffering and in a league where the Commissioner himself has reduced his salary as a good gesture to the fans, the Detroit Lions should be ashamed. Matthew Stafford should have been offered a competitive contract to the two years prior, in the $30M range (which is still insane money). He would have taken that contract. Where else is he going to go play football and make anywhere near the same kind of money? Why pay him an additional $12M in a economically deprived state of our union?
Corporate America has lost touch of the value of a one dollar bill.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Union, Obama To Blame in Difficult Economic Times
The Auto industry needs to fail. I know, I know, that contradicts the theory of American industry rebounding and the trickle down effect of lost jobs may be devastating. But, its time to purge that business model and start over. What model you ask? "The one that has made the American worker too good to work," I reply.
There was a time when there were more people than there were jobs. A time when a worker was asked to work long hours, under harsh conditions for little reward. A time when newly unionized labor allowed workers to choke the ability of a company to have ample employees to fill their needs unless certain conditions were met. This caused companies to improve work conditions, offer more competitive pay scales as well as long term security for those employees after they spent a lifetime working to make a company profitable and could no longer do so.
Today, those same Unions are on the brink of being the sole reason the employees who make up their memberships are out of a job. Today, a union worker has a minimum wage, based upon their job duties, that is higher than the Federal Government's minimum wage, far higher. It's for skilled labor you say... Well, yes it is, but its also for "specialist" skilled labor, meaning a union worker is hired to do "a" job and cannot be asked to do anything outside the parameters of that job, and cannot be denied pay if the company does not have that job active on a given day the employee is at work. (i.e. the production line is down.)
Today, the union worker is guaranteed health insurance benefits far greater than that of the rest of American workers. Today, the union employee is allowed leave and sick days at a rate much higher than that of the rest of American workers. Today, that union worker is guaranteed retirement benefits far greater than the rest of American workers. In fact, GM alone, has to produce an additional 900,000 vehicles a year in order to pay retirement benefits to its retired employees.
Now, I am all for safe work places, equal opportunity, employee benefits and the ability for an employee to make a respectable living for their skill level. But, a person or company doesn't take on the risk of starting a business with a model in place that allows the employees to make in excess of what the company can earn to pay it. If the company cannot be profitable, there are no jobs. The more money a company can make, the more it can pay and the more jobs it can offer. Pretty basic stuff, really.
Its Joe the Plumber all over. Obama wanted Joe to pay more taxes if he bought the plumbing company, hired employees and made more money than he did as an employee. The reasoning behind Obama's plan is it would allow more of the workers to live close to the life of the business owners. The American dream per se. The contradiction to that, and McCain's point, was that if Joe couldn't make sense out of owning the business to earn money that in turn wouldn't be paid out in taxes, why buy the business (or why have the business in the United States). In turn, Joe won't create any jobs as a result.
Simple fact of the matter is, those union workers are too good to work at this point. They wouldn't show up to their jobs today if it was the only way to have food on their table that night without certain expectations. Pick the plant up and drop it in Mexico, and you would have non-union employees clamoring over those same jobs at a portion of the pay and benefits. The company could turn a profit and offer a more competitively priced car, sell more, need more employees, etc.
The difference between Obama and McCain was "who gets to make the money." And all of you employees out there who are pissed that I'm not sticking up for your ability to earn more money ask yourselves if you would be willing to take $1 million dollars of your own money and start a business to provide jobs for the next ten years at which point you would no longer have the million dollars but your employees do, would you do it out kindness?
The only way that the American who is too good to work is going to get what they want, is if the companies themselves can be profitable inside the borders of the United States. The more money a company can make the more jobs it can create, the more jobs it can create the more the ratio of job-to-employee will change, the more that ratio changes, the more money the employee can make because the employee need will be in high demand. Make it hard for a company to turn a profit due to taxes and forced union labor agreements, the fewer companies there are inside the borders of the United States and the fewer jobs there are.
If Obama wants change, he better look in the mirror first. Oh, wait, the unions bank rolled his campaign, no wonder we are keeping the Auto industry afloat, for the union workers who put them in this mess to begin with.
There was a time when there were more people than there were jobs. A time when a worker was asked to work long hours, under harsh conditions for little reward. A time when newly unionized labor allowed workers to choke the ability of a company to have ample employees to fill their needs unless certain conditions were met. This caused companies to improve work conditions, offer more competitive pay scales as well as long term security for those employees after they spent a lifetime working to make a company profitable and could no longer do so.
Today, those same Unions are on the brink of being the sole reason the employees who make up their memberships are out of a job. Today, a union worker has a minimum wage, based upon their job duties, that is higher than the Federal Government's minimum wage, far higher. It's for skilled labor you say... Well, yes it is, but its also for "specialist" skilled labor, meaning a union worker is hired to do "a" job and cannot be asked to do anything outside the parameters of that job, and cannot be denied pay if the company does not have that job active on a given day the employee is at work. (i.e. the production line is down.)
Today, the union worker is guaranteed health insurance benefits far greater than that of the rest of American workers. Today, the union employee is allowed leave and sick days at a rate much higher than that of the rest of American workers. Today, that union worker is guaranteed retirement benefits far greater than the rest of American workers. In fact, GM alone, has to produce an additional 900,000 vehicles a year in order to pay retirement benefits to its retired employees.
Now, I am all for safe work places, equal opportunity, employee benefits and the ability for an employee to make a respectable living for their skill level. But, a person or company doesn't take on the risk of starting a business with a model in place that allows the employees to make in excess of what the company can earn to pay it. If the company cannot be profitable, there are no jobs. The more money a company can make, the more it can pay and the more jobs it can offer. Pretty basic stuff, really.
Its Joe the Plumber all over. Obama wanted Joe to pay more taxes if he bought the plumbing company, hired employees and made more money than he did as an employee. The reasoning behind Obama's plan is it would allow more of the workers to live close to the life of the business owners. The American dream per se. The contradiction to that, and McCain's point, was that if Joe couldn't make sense out of owning the business to earn money that in turn wouldn't be paid out in taxes, why buy the business (or why have the business in the United States). In turn, Joe won't create any jobs as a result.
Simple fact of the matter is, those union workers are too good to work at this point. They wouldn't show up to their jobs today if it was the only way to have food on their table that night without certain expectations. Pick the plant up and drop it in Mexico, and you would have non-union employees clamoring over those same jobs at a portion of the pay and benefits. The company could turn a profit and offer a more competitively priced car, sell more, need more employees, etc.
The difference between Obama and McCain was "who gets to make the money." And all of you employees out there who are pissed that I'm not sticking up for your ability to earn more money ask yourselves if you would be willing to take $1 million dollars of your own money and start a business to provide jobs for the next ten years at which point you would no longer have the million dollars but your employees do, would you do it out kindness?
The only way that the American who is too good to work is going to get what they want, is if the companies themselves can be profitable inside the borders of the United States. The more money a company can make the more jobs it can create, the more jobs it can create the more the ratio of job-to-employee will change, the more that ratio changes, the more money the employee can make because the employee need will be in high demand. Make it hard for a company to turn a profit due to taxes and forced union labor agreements, the fewer companies there are inside the borders of the United States and the fewer jobs there are.
If Obama wants change, he better look in the mirror first. Oh, wait, the unions bank rolled his campaign, no wonder we are keeping the Auto industry afloat, for the union workers who put them in this mess to begin with.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
A Bonus for Failure in these Difficult Economic Times
You can't avoid it. Even though I refuse to pay attention to the "news" there is no way to avoid hearing about AIG and the 165 Million....no wait....$230 Million in bonuses distributed to CEOs and other corporate big wigs even though oddly enough the company is failing. I guess that begs the question "what was written in those contracts that they as employees were expected to do to earn those bonuses?"
I've been in sales for a number of years and typically a bonus, like a commission, is a reward for meeting certain sales thresholds or increasing business. Same for management roles, which I've also held, where the expectation is increase production or finding ways to save the company money in order to see the likes of a bonus. For AIG, however, it seems if they simply put in their 40 hours a week, they got their bonuses.
Of course, while we've been hearing the word "BONUS" what AIG has explained is that the monies are for "retention" of employees. You see, in Corporate America, there are certain amounts of money a CEO can earn as a salary and they beat the system by contracting ridiculous amounts of money into "retention" bonuses above and beyond the salary. But, the fact remains the same, if those are the same employees who can't seem to run a profitable company, are they worth retaining?
I've been in sales for a number of years and typically a bonus, like a commission, is a reward for meeting certain sales thresholds or increasing business. Same for management roles, which I've also held, where the expectation is increase production or finding ways to save the company money in order to see the likes of a bonus. For AIG, however, it seems if they simply put in their 40 hours a week, they got their bonuses.
Of course, while we've been hearing the word "BONUS" what AIG has explained is that the monies are for "retention" of employees. You see, in Corporate America, there are certain amounts of money a CEO can earn as a salary and they beat the system by contracting ridiculous amounts of money into "retention" bonuses above and beyond the salary. But, the fact remains the same, if those are the same employees who can't seem to run a profitable company, are they worth retaining?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Obama Selling Sound Fundamentals During Difficult Economic Times
Ahhhh....we've finally turned the corner and doesn't it figure. It's like anything, really. In order to prevail, Obama had to find the nerve center and take a firm stand on its pulse in order to build enough sentiment on how he was the answer to the problem at hand and how his Republican counterparts were part of said problem. Now that he's accomplished his goal and needs to shift gears to rid the fear he himself emphasized during his election, he agrees that our economic structure in America is "sound" despite earlier denying it.
In a recent article posted on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29706224/) you will read how Obama has changed his stance on the economy and despite the continued deluge of economic tailspins reported through the media that Obama now states the "the fundamentals of our economy are sound."
We are a consumer nation and buy whatever they are selling. Tell us tomorrow that the economy is the best its been since Reagan and we'll react and behave as if it were. As consumers, we need to start reading the packaging to understand how many preservatives are contained in the messages we are feed. It appears that Obama is now ready to sell us the message that the economy isn't as bad as it was pre-November 2008 and we'll buy it, if the media tells us to.
In a recent article posted on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29706224/) you will read how Obama has changed his stance on the economy and despite the continued deluge of economic tailspins reported through the media that Obama now states the "the fundamentals of our economy are sound."
We are a consumer nation and buy whatever they are selling. Tell us tomorrow that the economy is the best its been since Reagan and we'll react and behave as if it were. As consumers, we need to start reading the packaging to understand how many preservatives are contained in the messages we are feed. It appears that Obama is now ready to sell us the message that the economy isn't as bad as it was pre-November 2008 and we'll buy it, if the media tells us to.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
92.4% Employment Rate in these Difficult Economic Times
That's right, I said Employment Rate, not Unemployment. During these difficult economic times when the number of jobs lost across the nation over the last 12-18 months have been highly publicized, first by someone running for President and needed the American people to recognize it in order to cry out for change, then it became an epidemic because someone needed it to get elected, there remains a civilian workforce EMPLOYMENT rate of 92.4%. Yes, 92.4% of Americans who are of age and seeking employment continue to have employment in these wayward times.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of our unemployed, the highest rate is among teenagers. A whooping 20%. If you eliminate teenagers from the workforce equation, people who are post high school education levels and possibly have families to contend with, then only 5 people in every 100 cannot find work when they are seeking it. It's all in how you spin it. I feel like our economy is doing pretty well and of those 92.4% of people who continue to work were not being scared by the media to stuff all their money into their mattresses, things would be even better.
Supposedly we are in a recession. The last time we had a bonified recession that lead to a bonified depression was in the late 20s and 30s. The unemployment rate from 1929 until 1939 went from 3.2% to 17.2%, peaking at 24.9% in 1933. Financial experts claim the recession came to a close in 1938 with unemployment still at 19%. Bearing all that in mind, I think we need to remember every time you hear someone quoting the UNemployment rate that what it really means is that the other 92.4% of Americans who want a job, have a job. And by our last well documented recession standards we are doing pretty well as a Nation.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of our unemployed, the highest rate is among teenagers. A whooping 20%. If you eliminate teenagers from the workforce equation, people who are post high school education levels and possibly have families to contend with, then only 5 people in every 100 cannot find work when they are seeking it. It's all in how you spin it. I feel like our economy is doing pretty well and of those 92.4% of people who continue to work were not being scared by the media to stuff all their money into their mattresses, things would be even better.
Supposedly we are in a recession. The last time we had a bonified recession that lead to a bonified depression was in the late 20s and 30s. The unemployment rate from 1929 until 1939 went from 3.2% to 17.2%, peaking at 24.9% in 1933. Financial experts claim the recession came to a close in 1938 with unemployment still at 19%. Bearing all that in mind, I think we need to remember every time you hear someone quoting the UNemployment rate that what it really means is that the other 92.4% of Americans who want a job, have a job. And by our last well documented recession standards we are doing pretty well as a Nation.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Playing Ball in these Difficult Economic Times
It has now literally bled into every talk radio channel I can possibly tune my 200+ channel magic radio (satellite). No matter the subject, the economy makes its way into every conversation as though to remind us of the product being sold in an advertisement that has nothing to do with selling it. Reminiscent of Kevin Nealon's Saturday Night Live Subliminal Man character, I frequently tune to sports talk to hear sentences like "a tournament without Tiger in the final rounds in this economy requires much better scoring than we seen this past weekend" and "Manny Ramirez needs the Dodgers more than the Dodgers need Manny in this economy."
The Commissioner of the NFL took a 20% pay cut in light of the economy last week, then before the week was out, Albert Haynesworth signed a free agent contract for a league record $41 million dollars guaranteed. The Chiefs traded for a 15 game quarterback for the price tag of $14 million for the one upcoming season. Should have kept your pay Commish....your own league devalued your public relations effort like Chris Brown keeping it real with Rihanna.
MLB is now into Spring training with the 2009 season soon approaching and a few baseball greats remain free agents looking for a contending team to bring them on board. To listen to so called well respected analysts, these players are to blame for not being on a team already as they need to consider the economic times when negotiating contracts. In review, there was nearly $700 million dollars inked in free agency contracts averaging $14 million each player divided over the next three years.
Professional Golf great Jack Nicklaus had initially desired to set the purse of a Memorial tournament in Ohio to a record $7 million but had second thoughts on the message it would send considering Ohio's job loss rate and that raising the bar would send the wrong message. So instead, the tournament purse was set at a measly $6 million. I say raise the bar, send the right message, that we have money to spend and if we spend it, the economy will benefit. For the record, purses in 2008 exceeded $278 million dollars. (Most of it is now Tiger's of course).
The University of Connecticut head men's basketball coach, Jim Calhoun, recently was asked by a reporter if he would consider taking a pay cut due to the economy conditions of the State. To which Calhoun replied... "are you stupid." And insisted his pay is just and he wasn't giving one dime back. Good for you Jim Bo. The economy can't be too bad if that idiot reporter has a job and isn't standing in line at a soup kitchen!
The economy and sports seem to not be in line with each other which may be a bright spot in these difficult times. We know sports stars like their "bling," "posse" and "cribs" and they certainly spend a fair share on performance enhancing drugs, fines and, well, lady friends. Maybe they'll be the only ones to spend their money which is what needs to happen to keep everyone else in the real world employed.
The Commissioner of the NFL took a 20% pay cut in light of the economy last week, then before the week was out, Albert Haynesworth signed a free agent contract for a league record $41 million dollars guaranteed. The Chiefs traded for a 15 game quarterback for the price tag of $14 million for the one upcoming season. Should have kept your pay Commish....your own league devalued your public relations effort like Chris Brown keeping it real with Rihanna.
MLB is now into Spring training with the 2009 season soon approaching and a few baseball greats remain free agents looking for a contending team to bring them on board. To listen to so called well respected analysts, these players are to blame for not being on a team already as they need to consider the economic times when negotiating contracts. In review, there was nearly $700 million dollars inked in free agency contracts averaging $14 million each player divided over the next three years.
Professional Golf great Jack Nicklaus had initially desired to set the purse of a Memorial tournament in Ohio to a record $7 million but had second thoughts on the message it would send considering Ohio's job loss rate and that raising the bar would send the wrong message. So instead, the tournament purse was set at a measly $6 million. I say raise the bar, send the right message, that we have money to spend and if we spend it, the economy will benefit. For the record, purses in 2008 exceeded $278 million dollars. (Most of it is now Tiger's of course).
The University of Connecticut head men's basketball coach, Jim Calhoun, recently was asked by a reporter if he would consider taking a pay cut due to the economy conditions of the State. To which Calhoun replied... "are you stupid." And insisted his pay is just and he wasn't giving one dime back. Good for you Jim Bo. The economy can't be too bad if that idiot reporter has a job and isn't standing in line at a soup kitchen!
The economy and sports seem to not be in line with each other which may be a bright spot in these difficult times. We know sports stars like their "bling," "posse" and "cribs" and they certainly spend a fair share on performance enhancing drugs, fines and, well, lady friends. Maybe they'll be the only ones to spend their money which is what needs to happen to keep everyone else in the real world employed.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Selling our Difficult Economic Times
The media has always driven me crazy. Mostly because the fluff and stuff of things we force ourselves to be interested in combined with the over-hyping of what might have been a good story...if it were true...in order to get viewers. I would be willing to bet many if not most or even all of you have fallen prey to this madness as their most common bait and switch is the weather, especially on a slow news day. They promote, using film reel from a snow storm ten years ago, the potential of "bad weather" in order to get you to tune in later for a full forecast when low and behold, there is a 10% chance of snow that rarely holds true. All the while, shoppers swarmed their local Walmart buying them out of bread, milk and snow shovels.
Well, in these difficult economic times, the media has turned its focus on what appears to catch the attention of their consumer these days, our difficult economic times. Tossing the word "economy" into their daily spots to entice viewers to tune in with lead ins like "more news on the economy tonite at 10" in order to maintain ratings, which ironically keeps their economy headed in the right direction. Most viewers then tune in thinking "what now, some other car manufacturer hitting the pavement face first, another mortgage company getting a bail out in order to make good their bonuses for CEOs." Oh no, not that at all. Turns out the promo got you to tune in for a trumped up human interest piece on how a local coffee shop was going to cure the economy through the ever famous "take a penny, leave a penny" tray program.
My wife will tell you that I despise the news. And, well, its true. The news they promote all day, including the damn weather, is never ultimately newsworthy. But like the weather when everyone panics over a mildly true report, the repetitive use of the economy as a lead in, only deepens Americans fears that the economy is bad and only getting worse. Its only made out to be news you might be interested in for the purpose of ratings. No ratings, no commercials. No commercials, no news program and to an end, no profit. Even in this difficult economic time, money still makes the world go around and media outlets are not non-profit organizations. So remember before you tune in next time that you are a customer being sold a bill of goods. In these difficult economic times, I suggest you save your money and tune them out.
Well, in these difficult economic times, the media has turned its focus on what appears to catch the attention of their consumer these days, our difficult economic times. Tossing the word "economy" into their daily spots to entice viewers to tune in with lead ins like "more news on the economy tonite at 10" in order to maintain ratings, which ironically keeps their economy headed in the right direction. Most viewers then tune in thinking "what now, some other car manufacturer hitting the pavement face first, another mortgage company getting a bail out in order to make good their bonuses for CEOs." Oh no, not that at all. Turns out the promo got you to tune in for a trumped up human interest piece on how a local coffee shop was going to cure the economy through the ever famous "take a penny, leave a penny" tray program.
My wife will tell you that I despise the news. And, well, its true. The news they promote all day, including the damn weather, is never ultimately newsworthy. But like the weather when everyone panics over a mildly true report, the repetitive use of the economy as a lead in, only deepens Americans fears that the economy is bad and only getting worse. Its only made out to be news you might be interested in for the purpose of ratings. No ratings, no commercials. No commercials, no news program and to an end, no profit. Even in this difficult economic time, money still makes the world go around and media outlets are not non-profit organizations. So remember before you tune in next time that you are a customer being sold a bill of goods. In these difficult economic times, I suggest you save your money and tune them out.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Difficult Economic Times the new WMD
Weapons of mass destruction, or better known as WMDs, were a permanent fixture on newspaper headlines and television newscasts when we were told that these WMDs were going to cause us great harm if we didn't act immediately. Today's weapon of mass destruction is the heightened awareness of our economy, our Difficult Economic Times or DETs. In fact, the DETs have become more devastating to America today than the WMDs ever were. I mean, we never actually seen the WMDs, did we?
Add to the fact that the government has spent a great deal of tax payer money on fighting the DETs much like they did fighting the WMDs as further evidence that we have a new threat on our hands. But are the DETs more real than the WMDs or just more damaging?
For a cattle farmer in Oklahoma to a waitress in Atlanta or even a shoe salesman in Seattle, the DETs are the equivalent to land mines in their every day life. These landmines, however are tricky, as only one in every ten are charged, you see the media drops these little bombs in mass, laying them across our daily path. The fear alone of stepping on one of these mines, however, are enough to cause widespread panic that eventually effects everyone.
The sorry angle to this post is that the DETs are the result of friendly fire hitting us where it hurts the worse, the pocket book.
Add to the fact that the government has spent a great deal of tax payer money on fighting the DETs much like they did fighting the WMDs as further evidence that we have a new threat on our hands. But are the DETs more real than the WMDs or just more damaging?
For a cattle farmer in Oklahoma to a waitress in Atlanta or even a shoe salesman in Seattle, the DETs are the equivalent to land mines in their every day life. These landmines, however are tricky, as only one in every ten are charged, you see the media drops these little bombs in mass, laying them across our daily path. The fear alone of stepping on one of these mines, however, are enough to cause widespread panic that eventually effects everyone.
The sorry angle to this post is that the DETs are the result of friendly fire hitting us where it hurts the worse, the pocket book.
A new challenge in the face of these difficult economic times
In overall acceptance and by no means a slap in the face of someone who has actually lost a job or some money in the stock market, I feel it is time to present a new challenge during these difficult economic times. Trust me, it'll be fun and will allow you to see just how ridiculous the propaganda surrounding our economic times has become. So, here it goes..it's easy, really.
For the balance of 2009, I suggest for everything we say, write, text, chat or instant message that you simply add the words "in these difficult economic times" somewhere within the content. Here are some examples:
"I need to go to the restroom in these difficult economic times"
"Kids...settle down back there or I'll turn this car around in these difficult economic times"
"The Lakers beat the Celtics by 3 in these difficult economic times"
"Their calling for rain this weekend in these difficult economic times"
"Where would you like to eat tonite in these difficult economic times"
"Honey, have you seen my other sock in these difficult economic times"
"Dad, can you help me with my math homework in these difficult economic times"
"Oppss...I'm late to work writing this blog in these difficult economic times"
Try it, its fun and everyone else is doing it!
For the balance of 2009, I suggest for everything we say, write, text, chat or instant message that you simply add the words "in these difficult economic times" somewhere within the content. Here are some examples:
"I need to go to the restroom in these difficult economic times"
"Kids...settle down back there or I'll turn this car around in these difficult economic times"
"The Lakers beat the Celtics by 3 in these difficult economic times"
"Their calling for rain this weekend in these difficult economic times"
"Where would you like to eat tonite in these difficult economic times"
"Honey, have you seen my other sock in these difficult economic times"
"Dad, can you help me with my math homework in these difficult economic times"
"Oppss...I'm late to work writing this blog in these difficult economic times"
Try it, its fun and everyone else is doing it!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Difficult Economic Times & Climbing
In today's economy or the preferred media preface "in these difficult economic times" officially stuck the landing on a nerve that can no longer be tolerated, my last one. I just dared myself to gauge the number of references to the dreaded phrase in Google which returned 82,800,000 results. More than Barrack Obama, which presently registers 1,430,000. That's not twice as many, not four times as much, but rather 57 times as many.
I searched a few others to illustrate how out of hand this phrase has become.
In These Difficult Economic Times - 82,800,000
Disney World - 32,900,000
Brad Pitt - 29,700,000
Jessica Simpson - 30,900,000
Tiger Woods - 16,900,000
Global Warming - 34,900,000
Hybrid Cars - 8,900,000
Alternative Fuels - 24,200,000
I'll check back in a few weeks to gauge it again. I can promise you that it will continue to grow as the phrase has ironically become the bread and butter for the media to capture the attention of its partons.
I searched a few others to illustrate how out of hand this phrase has become.
In These Difficult Economic Times - 82,800,000
Disney World - 32,900,000
Brad Pitt - 29,700,000
Jessica Simpson - 30,900,000
Tiger Woods - 16,900,000
Global Warming - 34,900,000
Hybrid Cars - 8,900,000
Alternative Fuels - 24,200,000
I'll check back in a few weeks to gauge it again. I can promise you that it will continue to grow as the phrase has ironically become the bread and butter for the media to capture the attention of its partons.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
