Auto industry, seeing new life, is on hiring spree

[Rey C.]

His first two years were dealing with stagflation stemming from 1976-1980.

Considering that Reagan didn't take office until 1981, that was quite a feat, eh? :1orglaugh

I don't really care to :horse: (no pun intended or offense to Reagan), but economic facts, data and history are not with you on this one, Trident. I was actually something of a Reagan fan during that time. I was a college kid, studying Econ at a conservative university, and if you couldn't wrap your mind around Supply Side Economics, you'd either have to select a different major or transfer to a different school. I chose to stay. So I was down with the Laffer Curve, etc. I've since realized the flaws within Supply Side Theory, just as there are flaws within Demand Side Theory. But as you try to make the Obama stimulus plan out to be a complete failure, it might help you to know that roughly half of the stimulus was made up of tax breaks, credits and rebates. Ya know... the very things that form the basis of Supply Side Theory.

I understand where you're coming from though. You're a fan of Ronald Reagan, just as, for example, I am a fan of Ayrton Senna da Silva. In my mind, Senna did no wrong... and could do no wrong. I'll slap a Prost fan in the face to this day if he speaks ill of The Great One. But ya know, I fully realize and accept that I can become irrational and loosey-goosey with the facts and the truth when I get on a good Senna rant. Some say that my eyes change color. Some say that my voice lowers six octaves and I go Exorcist. No one really knows. But Baconsalt was a Prost fan. And you haven't seen him around lately, have you?

Jokes aside, the truth is, things were not as rosey under Reagan as you're trying to make them out to be - and they're not as bad under Obama as you're trying to make them out to be. But I "lived" the 80's. Hard! I should probably be in a graveyard now. But someone up there must have felt sorry for my wild, dumb ass, I guess. I "made my bones" in the 80's. Net/net, dude, I fuckin' LOVED the 80's!!! :banger: I made more money in a shorter period of time than I thought a kid like me ever could. But I also watched my father sell a family farming operation that we'd had for over 100 years because farming was no longer profitable or worth the effort. Yes, stagflation... and then the high interest rates that Volker (Reagan had NOTHING to do with monetary policy) imposed to kill it. And yeah, I studied that era as it whizzed by me. Carefully. My memory is not as good as it used to be, but it's far too often that people speak of Reagan these days as if he was some sort of god-like figure. Like a modern day Caesar Augustus. Yes, it was the start of a long period of growth. But it was also the start of the U.S. falling into net debtor nation status... from which we have never recovered. We entered into a balance of trade deficit in the mid 70's (before Reagan), it got worse under Reagan/Bush, got even worse under Clinton (NAFTA, etc.) and went to total fucking hell under W. Bush (that "free market capitalism" wasn't exactly what the Club for Growthers and Chamber of Commerce claimed it would be, huh? ). Oddly enough, it's actually leveled out somewhat under Obama. Though part of that is because we've been in a recession and demand has been down. No need to come to Reagan's defense with me. I'll just post a graph or a data set from the Fed, CBO, Bureau of Labor Stats or the Foreign Trade Div. of the the U.S. Census Bureau and have another beer. I'm not trying to fight with you. Be a fan of whomever you want to be a fan of. Cool with me. But even though I was born at night... it wasn't last night. M'kay? :google: before making claims. I'm just sayin'.

So look, the bottom line is, as I said, you're a major fan of Reagan. And that's perfectly cool with me. But aside from being entertaining, selective, revisionist history does not a good point make. :hatsoff:


________________________________________
P.S. Prost was at fault for running into Ayrton in 1989 at Suzuka. And when Senna took his frog ass out in 1990, he had it coming to him! Senna was ALWAYS right!!! As I remember it, he won every race he entered!

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Jeez here we go with the spin again. Otrauma's economic policies have been a failure and everything is worse than it was during Reagans term. The economy grew during his 2 years. It's a flatline for Otrauma. Capital is flowing out out of the country. During Reagan it was kept here at home investing in our industries. The Keynesian experiment under O has been a disaster.
No wonder my father's free market workshop under Friedman at U. of Chicago always had the upper hand over the Keynesian backers.
Spin spin spin Meg your side lost and the economy is as flat as a board.

You're a lot like Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House Chip Diller, who does his best/worst crowd control by telling everyone, "All is well!" while all hell is breaking loose.
You're quite the micro manager Meg, so fixated you never grasp the whole picture.


"All is well!"

Sorry as all you Republicans put it W and Reagan are not in office, Obama is and ownes it! The world economy is far different that Reagan faced, far different! W merely approached the wall full steam and Obama hit it twice! The U.S. ecomomy in Reagan days was homebound and we made what we bought. China or India were not even on the map! Japan was the enemy, with all of us buying Sony Walkmen and Toyota's. Small potatos, compared to what worldwide Capitalism has created in this day and age, which is what we all created wanting cheap items at a bargain price. We slit our own throat! Now the genie is out of the bottle, no one is putting it back in!

 

[Trident1]

Considering that Reagan didn't take office until 1981, that was quite a feat, eh? :1orglaugh

Right Reagan came in Jan '81 and had to deal with stagflation from the Carter years 1976-1980. Thanks to Milton Friedman's ideas the economy took off after '83.


Reagan's economy soared.....Otrauma's never left the ground.

what worldwide Capitalism has created in this day and age,

Oh yes please go on about how "evil" capitalism is. Please do tell what should take it's place?

 

[Trident1]

http://www.businessinsider.com/details-from-the-awful-june-june-jobs-report-2011-7


Yes Otrauma is Hope and Change.

 

[mikexmoran]

Jeez here we go with the spin again. Otrauma's economic policies have been a failure and everything is worse than it was during Reagans term. The economy grew during his 2 years. It's a flatline for Otrauma. Capital is flowing out out of the country. During Reagan it was kept here at home investing in our industries. The Keynesian experiment under O has been a disaster.
No wonder my father's free market workshop under Friedman at U. of Chicago always had the upper hand over the Keynesian backers.
Spin spin spin Meg your side lost and the economy is as flat as a board.

You're a lot like Kevin Bacon's character in Animal House Chip Diller, who does his best/worst crowd control by telling everyone, "All is well!" while all hell is breaking loose.
You're quite the micro manager Meg, so fixated you never grasp the whole picture.


"All is well!"

It is fantastic that your dad had the chance to study under Milton Friedman. What a great mind. I had the pleasure of meeting him and even arguing with him a couple of time some years back. He challenged Keynesian in a very practical way. (I teach the Reagan years actually prove out the Keynesian model, but he challenged that hard)

The one area I really agreed with him on is legal protection to facilitate economic growth. It is something we need to focus on now.

I'm not going to join the battles here, but I will encourage everyone to do as you alluded, don't look at things from a micro level. Don't try and compare statistics from two eras. Look at cause and effects of policy and changes being made. For instance, the auto industry is the topic of the original posting - how did we get to the numbers we are seeing now? Are these short term changes or is is sustainable? What was fixed?

 

[monicasilver]

Alright, since we're all in agreement:
-Obama still has opportunity to turn the economy.
-Sticking to a politician without seeing their faults is stupidity, equally as stupid as not seeing the pluses in your "opponent" politician.
-Mike gave us all homework

What I think is worthwhile discussion, is the $14.3 debt ceiling that is going to be hit on 8/2/11. Obama says he needs a decision by 7/22/11 so he can issue additional bonds to make payments.

A couple of thoughts on that....

The 14th amendment allows Obama to issue the bonds regardless or Congress raising the debt ceiling. The national debt is protected by the Constitution.

The Republicans already won the debate in my view. (Hey, if you want to say the Democrats won, I really don't care, so long as the deal doesn't change) Both sides should just acknowledge it and be reasonable. Kill the corporate and top earner tax loops hole in exchange for Billions in expenditure cuts. If this deal isn't made, I would say it is the citizens RESPONSIBILITY to vote every single incumbent out of office for negligence.

 

[Rey C.]

Right Reagan came in Jan '81 and had to deal with stagflation from the Carter years 1976-1980. Thanks to Milton Friedman's ideas the economy took off after '83.

Friedman was definitely an influential figure with Reagan. But being that Friedman was a monetarist, I would be careful in claiming that it was (strictly) his ideas which led to the real GDP growth seen later in Reagan's term. If one wants to be true to the legend, Laffer's ideas should be front and center. And the (now) unseen puppet master in all of this was actually Paul Volker.

Reagan's economy soared.....Otrauma's never left the ground.

Hmm, well, as a point of logic, it's illogical to claim that one spent his first two years dealing with the issues "caused" by his predecessor, but then claim that the other is to blame for the issues that were waiting for him as soon as he sat down at the big desk.

I have absolutely NO idea how this is going to play out - and neither does anyone else. I'm simply saying that for purposes of consistency, it's more correct to use "like timelines" when making these comparisons. That way we can see data comparisons, and not just dwell on opinions and "the end justifies the means" type arguments. One fellow (actually a pal of mine on another board) tried to tell me that with Reagan, "everybody knew that it was going to work out in the end". Really? Well, first of all, that seems to me yet another revisionist, backward looking fantasy about the Reagan years. And for another, it's not accurate. All one has to do is look at consumer confidence numbers from those years (1981-1989) to know that not "everybody" was wearing rose colored glasses.

The Reagan years were fantastic for me. The 80's, overall, were great - at least that's how I remember them. But even as I say that, I realize that as one ages, the mind is rather selective about what it remembers and what it chooses to forget. Around the race track we call it "The Older I Get, the Faster I WAS" Syndrome. That's why data is important. Though the analysis and interpretation of that data requires a standardized methodology... not just cutting & pasting to suit the moment.

Not just speaking to people on the right... or just to people on the left, but my view continues to be that partisan politics will be the root cause of the failing of this republic. It would be very difficult to convince me that one side or the other isn't hoping for the worst of the worst for America, just so that their side, their guy, can get back in power. As I said, this is EXACTLY what Washington warned us about. But Americans are too foolish and short-sighted to realize that and follow his advice.

 

[monicasilver]

I have absolutely NO idea how this is going to play out - and neither does anyone else.

I know EXACTLY how it is going to play out.

I'm just not going to share that information with anyone. You'll just have to wait and see.

:elaugh::horse:

 

[Hot Mega]

Sigh *ahem*...Really??? Is it reeeeeeally that confusing?

Sheesh!!! I saw a POLITICAL ad this onevvvvv


It said in essence what the u/e rate, national debt and gas prices were the month Obama took office. Then it cited what they were 'today' (some day late June) and showed simply what the pct. difference/increase was AS AN APPARENT SHEER POLITICAL POINT...SANS (for those in Arizona, Ohio and Florida that means 'without') ANY EGGHEADED, THEORETICAL, BOOKBRAIN ANAYLYSIS.

As a sheer political response I cited Reagan's numbers over the EXACT SAME segment of his presidency.

The reason why this is (well one reason) a discussion on this board is because upon reading this in my siggy at least 2 members attempted to challenge me on it. One apparently not being aware of Reagan's numbers didn't think what I cited was true. Failing at challenging the validity of the numbers..they attempted a failed challenge at another set of facts.

The other poster apparently unaware of Obama's numbers challenged me to cite Obama's numbers for comparison. (Huh??? that makes my point) This poster either didn't know what Obama's numbers were nor that me posting Obama's numbers would have furthered my point. Apparently failing at the discovery of Obama's numbers being worse...this whole merry-go-round ensued.

Eggheads and "those who can't....." want to turn this into some debate on theory. Well the title of this thread is, "Auto industry, seeing new life, is on a hiring spree.." and the numbers I cite irrespective of theory are the nearly the same and actually worse during Reagan's first 2.5 yr point.

To me the discussion in this thread reminds me of one of the Indiana Jones scenes where some guy unleashes an awe-inspiring flash and dash show with two machetes in front of Harrison Ford then Harrison Ford whips out his pistol and smokes the guy. Just in case you don't grasp it, the people turning this into a tennis match of economic theory are the machete wielding guy.:2 cents:

Do some of you really think it comes down the gobble-d-gook you're shilling here when the man or woman who based on what's reflected in this article gets one of those jobs? Then celebrates by paying his fucking bills, taking the family out and/or otherwise likely spending his money other goods and services that employ other Americans???????????????????

 

[monicasilver]

Sigh *ahem*...Really??? Is it reeeeeeally that confusing?

Sheesh!!! I saw a POLITICAL ad this onevvvvv


It said in essence what the u/e rate, national debt and gas prices were the month Obama took office. Then it cited what they were 'today' (some day late June) and showed simply what the pct. difference/increase was AS AN APPARENT SHEER POLITICAL POINT...SANS (for those in Arizona, Ohio and Florida that means 'without') ANY EGGHEADED, THEORETICAL, BOOKBRAIN ANAYLYSIS.

As a sheer political response I cited Reagan's numbers over the EXACT SAME segment of his presidency.

The reason why this is (well one reason) a discussion on this board is because upon reading this in my siggy at least 2 members attempted to challenge me on it. One apparently not being aware of Reagan's numbers didn't think what I cited was true. Failing at challenging the validity of the numbers..they attempted a failed challenge at another set of facts.

The other poster apparently unaware of Obama's numbers challenged me to cite Obama's numbers for comparison. (Huh??? that makes my point) This poster either didn't know what Obama's numbers were nor that me posting Obama's numbers would have furthered my point. Apparently failing at the discovery of Obama's numbers being worse...this whole merry-go-round ensued.

Eggheads and "those who can't....." want to turn this into some debate on theory. Well the title of this thread is, "Auto industry, seeing new life, is on a hiring spree.." and the numbers I cite irrespective of theory are the nearly the same and actually worse during Reagan's first 2.5 yr point.

To me the discussion in this thread reminds me of one of the Indiana Jones scenes where some guy unleashes an awe-inspiring flash and dash show with two machetes in front of Harrison Ford then Harrison Ford whips out his pistol and smokes the guy. Just in case you don't grasp it, the people turning this into a tennis match of economic theory are the machete wielding guy.:2 cents:

Do some of you really think it comes down the gobble-d-gook you're shilling here when the man or woman who based on what's reflected in this article gets one of those jobs? Then celebrates by paying his fucking bills, taking the family out and/or otherwise likely spending his money other goods and services that employ other Americans???????????????????

Now we're back to the spin.

I agree with the numbers. Your analysis is spin.

 

[Hot Mega]

Now we're back to the spin.

I agree with the numbers. Your analysis is spin.

Oh Lawdddd for the love Sanford and Son...OF COURSE IT'S SPIN!!! As I stated before (modestly a million times) it was in response to spin (i.e. a political point).

Truthfully, the aim isn't intended for eggheaded, economic theorists and the academic crowd. When the average American tunes in to that ad they're not thinking Keynesian gobble-d-gook (at least I hope you being a person of sound mind and common sense don't believe that). They are looking at those raw numbers in a sheer political context. My illustrating the comparisons is for the average person to look at another set of numbers they may not have been familiar with when they try to judge the relevance, significance, etc. of the ad attacking Obama's numbers.

You 'agree' with the numbers??:shock: :1orglaugh Facts are usually pretty tough to disagree with and continue to have yourself taken seriously.

 

[monicasilver]

Alright. This is pretty easy stuff. I thought the discussion was done.

I haven’t seen anyone argue with the statistics or really argue Obama’s performance.

In a thread on the auto industry hiring, you posted through your signature some of the economic numbers during Reagan’s administration to an similar period of time in off that Obama is currently in. I really only had two things to say –

1.
The comparison may be interesting, but it is comparing two different situations. Obama appears to be doing at least as good as Reagan did, but they had two different sets of challenges. The discussion, if it was purely fact based and without bias, would be academic and theoretical (Which you seem to deride, so I’m assuming your motives are not about theoretical discussion). Much like comparing the numbers of Washington, Scott, Grant, Pershing, Eisenhower, and Austin to determine their performance. I don’t think anyone really cared how Eisenhower looked to Pershing, they just wanted him to win. So a comparison of Reagan and Obama followed by a defense of Obama, seems like the focus is in the wrong place. It would be different if you were comparing the actions Reagan took and what worked and what didn’t – that would be learning from the past instead of using it for a political justification.
2.
The comparison in the signature and the follow-up defense of it is biased. It just shows numbers that you are looking to show without deeper analysis. Taking a swipe at economic discussion as theoretical, then discussing a made up anecdotal story of a happy autoworker who now has a job seems like spinning to me. I can give you real stories about people having to sell their homes and move out of state because they cannot find employment (and stories of underemployed people with Master’s Degrees who are working at Home Depot as a stock person). I’m guess that for every 9.2 stories I could give you, you could find 90.8.

Today, I’m thinking Obama has my vote. He isn’t perfect and I think he made some big mistakes. I do think he is intelligent and is doing his best. His pluses and minus come up better than anyone else I heard who is running against him.

However, from what I see, your spinning doesn’t hold him accountable for much. I typically don’t spend the time, but when I do, I get the same kind of biased spin from people who tell me they are Tea Party Members.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

And let the right wing denial that obama never does anything right ensue

Really? I thought he was PotUS and not an auto industry CEO. Ford accepted how much stimulus money anyway? I know Chrysler did and it's mostly owned by a foreigner and the head of an Italian firm. Money well spent, amirite?

 

[Hot Mega]

Alright. This is pretty easy stuff. I thought the discussion was done.

I haven’t seen anyone argue with the statistics or really argue Obama’s performance.

In a thread on the auto industry hiring, you posted through your signature some of the economic numbers during Reagan’s administration to an similar period of time in off that Obama is currently in. I really only had two things to say –

There was political spin in the aftermath of our killing of OBL suggesting Bush's 'enhanced techniques' program was responsible for the intel which led to the successful mission.

I posted a direct quote in my siggy from an operative who handled KSM and Abu Zubaida which directly contradicted the claim and put the wordsmithing in context. It was time to replace it so upon hearing the political ad criticizing Obama as a failure and citing those numbers as justification. So in my proud custom of refuting GOPer spin by turning it on it's head...I offered Reagan's numbers.:hatsoff:

1.
The comparison may be interesting, but it is comparing two different situations. Obama appears to be doing at least as good as Reagan did, but they had two different sets of challenges.

Who cares? The ad didn't seek to examine what challenges Obama's numbers were met with.:dunno:

2.
The comparison in the signature and the follow-up defense of it is biased.

You say spinning now you say bias. I agree it was spinning but spinning doesn't have to be bias. Spinning could simply be offering an alternative (even if dispassionate) POV.:2 cents:

The original version of my siggy said merely ...now for Reagan's numbers followed by them. Where is the bias in that?:bigears:

I can give you real stories about people having to sell their homes and move out of state because they cannot find employment (and stories of underemployed people with Master’s Degrees who are working at Home Depot as a stock person). I’m guess that for every 9.2 stories I could give you, you could find 90.8.
[/QUOTE]
Duh. The economy isn't humming...of course there are horror stories. Isn't that the point of whether the economy is recovering as this article suggest...or not as instead we could be seeing more and more stories of businesses going BK, Banks failing, etc.??

However, from what I see, your spinning doesn’t hold him accountable for much.

Depends on what you call much?? On the economy...though he hasn't been perfect (namely because he and his Demo congress couldn't/wouldn't pass a budget sunsetting the tax cuts on the top 2) but I give him very high marks on the economy and am utterly flabbergasted when I see him backpedaling, shrinking and on the defensive like he was today ....when he and his minions ought to be making the case that instead of u/e topping out at 10.1 pct...it could have been 15, 16, 17 or higher without his actions.

But like I said, it depends on what you determine as 'much'. Again, this board is replete with examples of me taking Obama to task for policies he's engaged in that I thought were dumb.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

For those who fail to grasp...:1orglaugh



Heck of a job Obami:hatsoff:
http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2011/07/auto_industry_seeing_new_life.html

Is it really growing faster, or is it just recouping all the workers it's laid off over the last several years?

 

[Hot Mega]

Is it really growing faster, or is it just recouping all the workers it's laid off over the last several years?

Either would be good as an alternative to getting worse right?

 

[mikexmoran]

Alright. This is pretty easy stuff. I thought the discussion was done.

I haven’t seen anyone argue with the statistics or really argue Obama’s performance.

In a thread on the auto industry hiring, you posted through your signature some of the economic numbers during Reagan’s administration to an similar period of time in off that Obama is currently in. I really only had two things to say –

1.
The comparison may be interesting, but it is comparing two different situations. Obama appears to be doing at least as good as Reagan did, but they had two different sets of challenges. The discussion, if it was purely fact based and without bias, would be academic and theoretical (Which you seem to deride, so I’m assuming your motives are not about theoretical discussion). Much like comparing the numbers of Washington, Scott, Grant, Pershing, Eisenhower, and Austin to determine their performance. I don’t think anyone really cared how Eisenhower looked to Pershing, they just wanted him to win. So a comparison of Reagan and Obama followed by a defense of Obama, seems like the focus is in the wrong place. It would be different if you were comparing the actions Reagan took and what worked and what didn’t – that would be learning from the past instead of using it for a political justification.
2.
The comparison in the signature and the follow-up defense of it is biased. It just shows numbers that you are looking to show without deeper analysis. Taking a swipe at economic discussion as theoretical, then discussing a made up anecdotal story of a happy autoworker who now has a job seems like spinning to me. I can give you real stories about people having to sell their homes and move out of state because they cannot find employment (and stories of underemployed people with Master’s Degrees who are working at Home Depot as a stock person). I’m guess that for every 9.2 stories I could give you, you could find 90.8.

Today, I’m thinking Obama has my vote. He isn’t perfect and I think he made some big mistakes. I do think he is intelligent and is doing his best. His pluses and minus come up better than anyone else I heard who is running against him.

However, from what I see, your spinning doesn’t hold him accountable for much. I typically don’t spend the time, but when I do, I get the same kind of biased spin from people who tell me they are Tea Party Members.

It might be unpopular to hammer Washington, so I'll avoid that for a moment.

You have to admit Pershing did a good job in keeping the US troops from being "brigaded" out to the English or French armies.

Not to make light of Eisenhower's accomplishment, but lets face it, he had resources behind him.

No to be fair, we'll have to prorate all of the numbers out to Austin's time in command.

 

[josesentme]

It might be unpopular to hammer Washington, so I'll avoid that for a moment.

You have to admit Pershing did a good job in keeping the US troops from being "brigaded" out to the English or French armies.

Not to make light of Eisenhower's accomplishment, but lets face it, he had resources behind him.

No to be fair, we'll have to prorate all of the numbers out to Austin's time in command.

Pro-rating numbers for Austin doesn't make sense. The other generals have major accomplishments. Austin may have similar numbers at this point in his tenure, but he has a long way to go.

Scott probably compares favorable. He had tremendous logistical issues. The heat must have been horrible too. Considering those uniforms they wore back then it must have been icky.

 

[monicasilver]

Pro-rating numbers for Austin doesn't make sense. The other generals have major accomplishments. Austin may have similar numbers at this point in his tenure, but he has a long way to go.

Scott probably compares favorable. He had tremendous logistical issues. The heat must have been horrible too. Considering those uniforms they wore back then it must have been icky.

Austin isn't the only one coming in late. Grant came in late, as the commanding general. I would think his numbers are fairly horrible though. Pershing would have had similarly horrible numbers. Scott, Washington, and even Austin would definitely compare much more favorably.

 

[Rey C.]

Ford accepted how much stimulus money anyway? I know Chrysler did and it's mostly owned by a foreigner and the head of an Italian firm. Money well spent, amirite?

I think you're confusing the debtor in possession financing and the bridge financing that went to GM and Chrysler (under both W. Bush and Obama), prior to their bankruptcies, with the stimulus (under Obama). I'm aware that Ford accepted about $129 million for the purchase of certain fuel efficient vehicles - that was part of the stimulus. They also accepted other (stimulus) funding related to ERV's, flex fuel, etc. I have no idea what the total would be. What Ford didn't accept (need) was debtor in possession financing, as they were not headed toward bankruptcy. Whether it was lucky timing or a genius move, I think Alan Mulally has proven himself to be one of the most capable auto executives we've seen in the past 25+ years.

Is it really growing faster, or is it just recouping all the workers it's laid off over the last several years?

If I fire 50 out of 100 workers on Jan 1 of this year, I've reduced head count by 50%. If I hire (or rehire) 25 workers, on top of the 50 I still have, on Jan 1 of next year, I've increased head count by 50%. Semantics aside, year-over-year/period-over-period increases are typically described as "growth".

For the most part, the workers that are being brought back, or brought in as "new hires", are there to address demand, as opposed to just loading up the supply pipeline with product that'll be forced on dealers (which is how sales are calculated). Chrysler was (IMO) the worst of the supply push offenders. GM next. And Ford was actually doing a half-way decent job of attempting "demand pull" methods before the financial crisis hit.

We're getting back to the topic of the OP now, I think. And IMO, any increase in automotive employment is great news. For each of the automotive hires made, there's typically 7-9 workers hired by supporting industries and businesses. For the first time in about two years, I'm actually getting calls from recruiters again. Things still suck in housing and building. But in automotive, they are definitely getting better. :nanner: