EU

BYOD becomes standard - but it's going to hit you in the pocket

Bring your own device will soon become mandatory for many staff, but bosses will expect staff to pay for their own hardware to use at work.

One in three companies will have stopped providing smartphones, tablets and PCs for staff within three years – with many expecting staff to foot the bill for their shiny new gadgets, instead.

According to a survey of CIOs by analyst Garter, 38 per cent of companies expect to stop providing devices to workers by 2016.

Gartner said that BYOD is most often found in larger organisations with $500m to $5bn in revenues and 2,500 to 5,000 employees. Companies in the US are twice as likely to allow BYOD as those in Europe, where BYOD has the lowest adoption of all the regions. Employees in India, China and Brazil are most likely to be using a personal device (typically a standard mobile phone) at work.

Gartner said over time employers will stop paying for mobile devices – right now roughly half of BYOD programmes will cover some of the costs of hardware. Employers will gradually reduce their subsidies, and as the number of workers using mobile devices expands, and the number who receive no subsidy whatsoever will grow, it predicted.

"The organisation should subsidise only the service plan on a smartphone. What happens if you buy a device for an employee and they leave the job a month later? How are you going to settle up? Better to keep it simple. The employee owns the device, and the company helps to cover usage costs," David Willis, Gartner vice president said in a statement.

Security remains a concern but the research said that IT is catching up: more than half of organisations rate themselves high in security of corporate data for enterprise-owned mobile devices.

Willis said organisations are finally reaching the point where IT officially recognises what has always been going on: that people use their business device for non-work purposes.

"Once you realise that, you'll understand you need to protect data in another way besides locking down the full device. It is essential that IT specify which platforms will be supported and how; what service levels a user should expect; what the user's own responsibilities and risks are; who qualifies; and that IT provides guidelines for employees purchasing a personal device for use at work, such as minimum requirements for operating systems."

However the benefits of BYOD remain hard to measure for many businesses: only 22 percent believe they have made a strong business case.

About

Steve Ranger is the UK editor of TechRepublic, and has been writing about the impact of technology on people, business and culture for more than a decade. Before joining TechRepublic he was the editor of silicon.com.

96 comments
Slayer_
Slayer_

But I'm not buying a phone for business use. The company can provide it. It's bad enough they feel they don't have to pay me for after hours support.

Jay_H
Jay_H

I have a company device, I have my own. I don't mix the two. I certainly don't want to give the company access to my personal device, I want to choose a device and carrier based on my preferences and not some approved list, and on the other hand I don't want to be responsible for any security or other issue involving my device. I'm not being isolationist, my co-workers have my personal phone number if they need to contact me.

captainanalog
captainanalog

It's bad enough that they expect me to be on call 24/7 on a phone for which I pay. Watch out! If this continues, the next thing they'll do is make you an "independent sub-contractor" for tax purposes. It's all legal, since you "provide your own tools." Then you get no workman's comp, you pay all your payroll taxes, and you're not subject to wage protections. These people will not be satisfied until we bear all the costs and risks, while they keep all the profits. It's 21st century feudalism.

TRgscratch
TRgscratch

requires me to have a phone (for business use during business hours) and a PC/tablet (also for business use during business hours) but does not provide either, how much of the cost of these devices is a deductible business expense for me?

Darren B - KC
Darren B - KC

For the umpteenth time, here's another stupid claim that some new trend that is barely taking shape is ushered in as a "standard", like it's been around for decades or something. F*****g b******t. Between my office (about 100 employees) and the offices of fellow IT guys that I know (a total of maybe 900 users, roughly guesstimating), I can tell you that there's virtually ZERO BYOD happening. There are a handful of people that live in places where their company issued cell phones don't get good enough coverage when they are at home, so they have purchased their own phone from a carrier that does get good service, but THAT'S ALL. Nobody brings in laptops, tablets*, or phones. The scarce few that have asked have been denied by the corporate management and thier IT departments. They have no interest in BYOD. * Nobody brings in tablets because nobody wants to use tablets in the workplace, citing that they don't have the capabilities that they require for job functions. We actually TRIED to get people in our company to use tablets, but they all brought them back after only a few weeks, saying it wasn't as good as thier laptop! This debunks the blantant lie that TR likes to tell about how "tablets are replacing PC's". More b******t from people who have money tied up in the stock of mobile technology companies.

dogknees
dogknees

If the employer buys the device for the employees use, it still belongs to the employer and when the employee leaves, they return the device. Same as any other employer owned devices. If you didn't buy it, it's not yours.

zyzygy
zyzygy

My employer insists that if I want to use my own device I can, but it needs to meet all their security standards, including remote wipe, and I can't visit any web site that I choose. No Thanks. They can provide me with a device that they own to their specs.

net.minder
net.minder

For a company like ours that is very much a Windows shop, will corporate IT provide Windows apps like Office to install on BYOD computers? If the usual Microsoft enterprise licensing plans continue as the norm, yeah I guess so. What a mess that will be. If employees buy and bring their own PCs, you know what most will do - they will buy one with Windows Home installed because it's cheaper, and then it can't join the domain. Greaaat. Then the employee has to go back to the BuyMore and pay some nerd $90.00 per hour to install an expensive Professional or Enterprise version of Windows. (Easily exceeding the value of that cheap laptop, ha ha ha.) Here's another: if people don't bother to buy a decent antivirus program for their BYOD PC, the IT group probably can't force them to. Then your company will have a big virus outbreak resulting in the loss of millions in revenue ... meanwhile the IT crew won't need to fix it, and they can't anyway because they have no right to force an installation of software to a PC the company doesn't own. Can't wait to watch the fun!

HypnoToad72
HypnoToad72

After all, when articles saying we save too much and thus we're risking the economy going down aren't enough, then other articles come out saying that our overspending is risking all... there is no middle ground when it comes to scapegoating the working class, that's for sure. :( Meanwhile we continue to see taxpayer money propping up companies that offshore jobs. As jobs are offshored and/or wages devalued, government can't get as much tax revenue to pay the bills. Interest on existing debt is bad enough, but giving handouts to those gutting this country... with Ballmer and others threatening Obama in 2009 if they didn't get their precious way (google it, and the definition of "terrorism" while you're at it since terrorism isn't always about physical violence) and Microsoft has been a gigantic corporate welfare parasite for decades... as rep Grassley figured out when Microsoft told him how it has no "moral imperative to hire Americans" despite all the free handouts MS enjoys...

adornoe
adornoe

BYOD is about the employee's device, and not the employer's device, therefore, the employee won't be returning any device if he owns it.

Azathoth
Azathoth

Ever heard the term "My way or the highway"? That's what we were told. Some took the highway. It's win-win for the company.

adornoe
adornoe

First, BYOD would not encompass all devices, and there would have to be a minimum standard for hardware and/or software. So, one could not expect to go into a BYOD shop with a cheap device that doesn't meet a company's expectations for hardware, and the minimum in OS and software. Thus, a person with a cheap smartphone with 1gb memory and an outdated OS, should not expect that the company will upgrade his memory and bring the OS up-to-date, at company expense. The BYOD employee should also expect that, anti-malware software will be provided by the company, since the company will very likely want to standardize on a trusted package which the whole company will be under. So, no company could/should expect that a new employee will have the company's preferred anti-malware already installed; that would not be prudent.

adornoe
adornoe

that is "forcing" companies to offshore jobs. Yeah, I know that's way over your head to understand, but, it's a fact that, the bigger government gets, and the more spending it does, the more it's going to demand from businesses, which makes businesses look elsewhere to try to remain competitive and running. The problems with liberals is that, they aren't capable of understanding repercussions, and when the repercussions for stupid policy are felt, then they always manage to blame the problems on somebody else.

dogknees
dogknees

.. but I was responding to the paragraph from David Willis where he is explaining why employers couldn't buy the devices for the employees. Para 5.

net.minder
net.minder

Nooo, PCs too - I quote the article: "One in three companies will have stopped providing smartphones, tablets and PCs for staff within three years" Like you, I see the biggest immediate trouble coming if this is done with Windows PCs. But down the road, malware will be big on mobile devices too. The jurisdictional problem of employee-owned devices and who has to mop up the mess won't really go away.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Do you also mean the way Republicans and the wacko right (not that there's much difference these days) are blaming Obama for the results of their own policy decisions? As an example, Medicare Part D was passed by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Part of the massive increase in medical costs is the requirement that Medicare not negotiate the price of medications, but pay the full retail price on all purchases. As another related example, part of the massive increase in the national debt is the failure of the Republican-controlled Congress that passed Medicare D to even attempt to fund the program. Republicans and the wacko right are insistent on placing complete blame for both on Obama, completely ignoring their own culpability. Of course, the most obvious attempt at blame transferal is the attempt by the idjits to blame the government for "making" the banksters commit fraud; in light of the bankers' own admissions, this claim requires such extreme cranio-rectal inversion that its perpetrators can only be assumed to be looking out their mouths.

BdeJong
BdeJong

Offshore is declining in popularity everywhere around the globe. This is mainly due to companies (even the global ones) are experiencing a "Brain Drain" that results in a retarded development and innovation. But that may be a bit over your head to understand?

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

What explains the majority of offshoring that happened before Obama took office?

adornoe
adornoe

Then, why did you even bother to post your previous set of comments?

adornoe
adornoe

truths, as opposed to those in your camp who are easily misled and indoctrinated. Your world is upside down, and backwards. That is why, when your kind elected the biggest idiot to ever reside in the White House, the world is becoming upside down too. You're just too blind to notice.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

None of them appear to have anything to do with the world the rest of us live in.

adornoe
adornoe

ain't going to get you off the hook. So, you think you're pulling my chain? You're even "less smart" than I thought you were. It's actually me, that has you and Charlie and HAL, banging your heads against the wall, since you can't rile me or debate me with any kind of fact or truth. I don't have to rationalize anything, and I don't even have to justify anything either. When the facts are on my side, it's quite easy to debate with all kinds of confidence that I'm right and you and your friends are totally wrong and clueless and naive and with your heads stuck in the ground. I can be wrong, but not when it comes to the facts of the discussion we're having. I view you and HAL and Charlie in the same way I view the terrorists in the middle-east, though not on the same issue or in the same radical form. The terrorists in the middle east cannot conceive that there can be a different way of thinking or a different religion or a different way of living. Liberals like you have been indoctrinated to the point that, you can't think rationally or beyond your ideology. I know about how liberals think, because I was one myself. I used to be like you, but there came a time where I was smart enough to recognize that, the liberal/progressive ideology was no different from socialism. And, as history teaches us, socialism is very destructive, even while it might seem like the friend of the little guy. I like to believe that I have an open mind, but when it comes to the facts and truth, why be open-minded? The facts can stand on their own, and I don't have to spin them or change them or lie. The truth is self-evident. But, there are those out there, like you and HAL and Charlie who are in denial or aren't equipped to recognize the truth. There is nothing in my comments which you can debate against effectively, because, when the facts are on my side, and are very evident in the everyday world, there is no counter to that.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

But it's fun to pull his chain. Trying to anticipate how he'll rationalize any information you provide and which right-wing wacko response he'll come back with is highly entertaining. Given his adamant refusal to consider that he might actually have it wrong, I thought the "conservatives have open minds" comment, in particular, was absolutely hilarious.

adornoe
adornoe

The "ignore" option, and being in denial, are the only things liberals and ignoramuses can do, because, they can't win an argument with any real or salient points. Now, go back to sleep in your cave.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I can't believe either of you continue to respond to him. I also can't believe that neither of a pair of moderators knows how the 'Ignore' button works (that being the action he inspired me to take several dozen posts above).

adornoe
adornoe

intelligence. On the other hand, I'm very well equipped to judge you, so, you still remain and idiot and brainless. In the investigations up to now, the IRS has been found to have been targeting conservative and republican groups, and none of it was because they didn't have the appropriate resources to go after everybody equally. It was simple liberal targeting of any group which expressed any opinion that was opposite of what the liberals and Obama believe. It's that simple, and it's so apparent. Heck, even the liberal press has had to acquiesce and to join in the condemnation of the oppressive tactics being utilized by democrats in using the IRS to demonize and intimidate what they perceive as "right wing" groups. Nobody is questioning what the IRS, on behalf the Obama and democrats, have been doing. But apparently, you prefer to have your head buried deep in the dirt. Wake up, because, even you will be or are losing your rights, believe it or not, with what the democrats have been up to. Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech are being targeted by the liberals. BTW, I see how Nick had to come to your defense while trying to attack me, but, I can't be riled by either of you, or both of you together. When someone like myself holds the correct position and opinions on matters, neither of you matters. The only reason I deal with any of you, is because, you two are part of the reason that this country is in such a dire situation, and overcoming the insanity displayed by both of you and others like you, is why I bother to engage you both. Otherwise, neither of you would be worthy of my time. ;)

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

is a very nice person in person. He even appears to be relatively intelligent on computer issues. But the minute politics or economics enters the picture, he starts proselytizing, behaving like an @$$, and condemning those who won't see his gospel as true believers as idiots. He has so internalized his political beliefs that he rejects anything that contradicts those beliefs, no matter the source. And he has no ability to comprehend how [u]un[/u]American it is to tell somebody who disagrees with him to leave "his" country.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

And I really do not believe that any amount of [b]"Fact"[/b] will alter your opinion. OH and I did not sat that any specific group rourts the Tax System but I did most certainly say that the IRS is in place to prevent rourts. If they chose to do their job with the limited resources that they are allocated by targeting one group at a time instead of throwing their new wide and catching no one then that's their right and after all it's what's they are supposed to do. Of course in a Perfect World they would equally investigate everyone the same way and catch all of the cheats who are stealing from members of the public in not paying their rightful tax share. Of course if you where to approach your Government and demand that they correctly fund the IRS to do the job that they are required to do properly I would be considerably happier but I honestly do not expect you to do such as that would involve increasing the Government and clamping down on the fraudsters. Yep I was right never going to happen is it? Col

adornoe
adornoe

need to be investigated because they are probably cheating the tax system? That's idiotic, and brainless. The Tea Party and patriots groups, and even anybody that complained about Obama, was targeted by the IRS for investigation. In the U.S., that's unconstitutional, and criminal. Get that through your thick head, moron. Liberal groups were not being targeted in the last three years, and only conservatives and republicans were. That is equivalent to what was happening before the American revolution, where the British were targeting only those who defied and complained about the British. A whole new country was born from that revolution, and now, the idiotic liberals are bringing forth the same kind of conditions, except it's from the inside, which is a lot more insidious and criminal. Anybody that believes that conservatives and republicans deserve to be targeted, should not even be American, and probably deserves to be investigated himself, because what you advocate is criminal and unconstitutional. Now, get out of my country! You idiot!!!

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I however have got rid of you without really trying I might add. :^0 But something which Nick hasn't realized yet is that Feeding Trolls only makes them more noticeable not in any way makes then smarter. I chose to not respond to what are obviously stupid responses and that is bad how? Personally I would have thought that those Tea party Patriots would have loved the attention from the IRS what they did wrong was not so much in targeting Tea Party Fools but in not offering the same degree of investigation to everyone. They didn't over investigate Tea Party Members but they certainly did fail to properly investigate the others Tax Returns so they most likely got away with murder and underpaid their Taxes. Anyway what's so wrong with the IRS doing the job that they where formed to do? They after all are supposed to make sure that people pay the right amount of Tax are they not? Col

adornoe
adornoe

is to get rid of the opposition, just like the communists and dictators of the past and present? The liberals are not different from the communists of old, who, because they couldn't argue against the facts, they resorted to eliminating the opposition. Heck, that's exactly what the democrats have been doing lately, by using the IRS to try to quiet the opposition, like the Tea Party and anybody that calls themselves patriots, or that dares to question the actions of Obama and the democrats. But, in the end, Obama and the democrats and people like you, will always end up losing, because, the truth is eventually found out. Now, I would suggest you quit while you're behind, or you risk getting further behind. ;)

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

You are welcome to say what you like but you honestly shouldn't expect anyone to listen or take you seriously for that matter. So feel free to yell at the wind for blowing too hard and tell it that it must stop now because you don't like it. But if you honestly expect the wind to stop blowing because you tell it to you are not only delusional you need medical supervision in a controlled environment where you are unable to hurt yourself. OH and when I said More Power to You I was meaning 112,000 Volts at 3,000,000 Amps with High Impedance joints to your body, that way you can be electrocuted and cremated at the same time. :^0 Col

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I'm not the only one. I used actual numbers from reputable sites, such as this one: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth These people actually [u]know[/u] economics. They [u]understand[/u] economics. They provide economic information to businesses. They aren't going to base their recommendations on lies and misconceptions or they lose business. Yes the GDP growth rate started falling in 2000 as the dot com bubble was bursting. But the official start date for the 2001 recession is as I stated, in April 2001, [u]after[/u] Clinton left office. That is fact. Ignore it if you will, but know that in doing so you invalidate any claim to intelligence, rationality, or economic expertise.

adornoe
adornoe

WII and to leave the adults alone. But, JFK being a Catholic is not a problem to me, since I too am a Catholic. Apparently, it's you that has a problem with that and any other religion. Also, JFK was as far away from being communist as I am. If JFK were alive today, he probably wouldn't even recognize his party, since it's been turned into a haven for socialists and communists. I too used to be a democrat, but, the democrats of today are not even close to what democrats were 40 or 50 years ago. JFK's economic policies would get him kicked out of the "democratic" party of today. Now, get out of this discussion, or you'll continue making a fool of yourself. BTW. that "ask not ... " speech of JFK would be scorned at by democrats today, since their motto is to "ask what your country can do for you", and that is precisely what democrats are about today, the dependency society.

adornoe
adornoe

under Clinton. The economic expansion started under Reagan, and continued under Bush 41, even while Bush 41 was acting like a liberal. The economy was growing under Bush 41, but that was in spite of his efforts to derail what Reagan had put in place. Clinton did inherit an economy which was growing at about 4.2%, and despite the biggest tax hike in history that Clinton passed, the economy continued to prosper, but a lot of that was due to the new tech and internet age which started expanding massively during the 1990s. That period contained what was referred to as "irrational exuberance", since there was no real economic factor in industry to cause the economic expansion. And irrational it proved to be, when the economy started going downhill the last 2 years of Clinton, and he left it in a downturn, or in recession. Part of that recession was due to the massive tax increase, which did eventually start to catch up with the economy, and with businesses, like all tax increases do. So, better go back and study the history of what and how things really transpired, because, you keep being wrong. ;)

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

But I haven't commented because nothing you have said is worth a comment. You are free to believe what it is you want to and more power to you but honestly you have missed the boat. What you see as Fact is not what others see as Fact. While you are free to try to push your beliefs onto others you honestly shouldn't be surprised when you get ignored as it's a waste of time trying to engage in a discussion with you. OH and as a Last Resort don't forget what that [b]Catholic Commie[/b] said way back when, [i]"Don't Ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."[/i] As JFK was a Demon-crat he therefor must have been a Commie at least in your books if no ones else's. :^0 Col

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Since the open mind you say they have is absolutely missing in your case. You have at least one fact wrong: the expansion that began under GHW Bush 41 extended [u]throughout[/u] the Clinton administration and into the GWB administration: the American economy grew for ten years, from April 1991 through March 2001. I suspect all your other "facts" are as accurate as this one was...

adornoe
adornoe

unqualified to do so, especially when it comes to economic matters. None of the facts that I laid out can be disputed, and they're not opinions, since each and every one of them can be easily verified, in the everyday world. And, even my opinions are based on facts, so, it would be completely impossible for you to prove anything I say to be wrong. Now, go play with your WII and leave the adult discussions to the adults. ;)

adornoe
adornoe

real facts on the ground, and nobody that knows anything about economics can dispute them. The facts exist in the real world, and each and every one of the facts I mentioned are easily provable, by just looking all around you, everywhere you go. How the heck can anyone that has even one brain cell dispute those facts? As an example, the national debt is about $17 trillion, and the national deficit has been over a trillion dollars for the last 4 years. And, though unemployment might be "officially" at around 7.5%, the real unemployment rate is probably twice that. You conveniently looked up a Forbes article to try to show that under democrats, the economy fares better, but, you can't say that to businesses, who always prefer an economy where tax rates are low or lowered, and where the number of regulations don't present stumbling blocks all over the place. Those are facts that businesses have to deal with every day, and not something that can be quantified in a single and simple article. Under Carter, the economy was in shambles and in deep recession, and under Obama, businesses and people are struggling to stay above water. Those are 2 democratic presidents who were/are awful to the economy, and things are getting worse each day. Under Clinton, he inherited an economy growing at about 4.2% from Bush (41), and he left it in recession, which Bush (43) had to repair by cutting taxes. JFK had a good economy, and he was a democrat, but, the policies he pursued were the same as most republicans, and he really wasn't much of a democrat when it comes to economic policies. So, it took Regan and Bush (43) to take the economy in the right course for recovery, and it's going to take another republican to undo the damage from Obama and the democrats. But the bottom line is that, when it comes to conservative/republican economic policies, they always result in a much better economy than when democrats invoke their socialist agenda. The country is suffering now, because the socialist agenda has finally begun to show how damaging the democrats' policies have been to the country. Socialism takes a while for the damage to begin to take effect and we are witnessing that right now, in the U.S. and all over Europe and in Japan. For each article you can find touting the benefits of the democratic party agenda, you will likely find 10 that will show that, under republicans, businesses always fare better, and when businesses do good, the people do good too, because, that's where the jobs come from, and not the idiotic big government socialist agenda.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Passes their Beliefs or Opinions as Fact so it's therefore acceptable for others to do the same. Well at least that is how some think. :D Col

adornoe
adornoe

by those who are willing to open their eyes and minds in order to notice them. Fact: we are in a downturn in the economy. Fact: unemployment is on the rise, even while the gov't reports 7.5% unemployment. Fact: more money in people's pockets means they will have more to spend. Fact: more money in a company's bank account means they will have more money to spend on growing, and hiring people, and in even in research. Fact: the higher the taxes, the less companies will have for spending. Fact: the higher the number of regulations, the costlier it will be to conduct business, which means that companies will have less money to spend on hiring and on growing. Fact: government intervention into the marketplace always results in a more hostile environment in which to conduct business, which always results in sending operations and jobs overseas. Fact: higher taxes and a larger number of regulations, almost always come from the liberal side of politics, which means that, it's liberalism which is killing the economy Fact: the bigger government gets, the more it has to extract from the private sector economy, which means that, the private sector economy will be shrinking; that can be witnessed everyday in the conditions in the markets right now. Fact: college graduates are being left out of the economy, because, about 40-50% of them can't find work after graduating, and their knowledge and skills are rotting away. Fact: unemployment amongst blacks is worse now, under Obama, than it's ever been. Fact: the national debt is around $17 trillion, and growing Fact: the yearly national budget deficits are now way over $1 trillion dollars, and with no remedies in sight. Fact: the national debt and the yearly trillion dollar deficits, are NOT GOOD for the economy, and means that, the private sector is stuck with paying for it, sooner or later. Fact: the federal government borrows 44 cents out of every dollar it spends, which means that, we are already unable to pay for anything that the government spends money on right now, never mind any future spending. Only a very blind person could not agree with every one of those facts, and many others which I don't have the time to list right now. The problem with the economy and with economies all over the world, is people like you, because, it's people like you who insist that, there are no problems and that bigger government is the way to cure People like you are stuck with your liberal ideology, which is what is destroying the economy and the country. I don't mind saying that I'm a conservative, because I know that, a conservative is at least capable of keeping an open mind, and recognizing where the problems are, and coming up with solutions, even if some of the solutions might be hurtful at first. I too was a liberal, in fact, an ultra-liberal. But, I also was a thinker, and I had to admit to myself that, regardless of how many good intentions the liberals had, they were also most destructive to people's lives and to the country as a whole. Fact: liberalism and socialism are destructive; that can't be argued against.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You make statements, but provide no data–actual numbers–to back those statements up. When questioned about the basis of your statements, you simply tell those who question you that you have already provided the facts, when in fact, you have not done so. Your logic isn't, your facts aren't, and you are so blinded by your ideology you're incapable of seeing that. You are not capable of logically supporting your ideology, but will hear nothing against it. In short, you have allowed your political beliefs to become your religion.

adornoe
adornoe

can't recognize them, even when they hit you squarely in the middle of your eyes. The facts on the ground, iow: in the real world, match up with everything that I post, and your problem is that, you're too much in entrenched in your liberal bubble, that you will never be able to notice reality or the facts. It's like the situation with the Benghazi attacks which killed our ambassador in Libya and three other Americans, and where the liberal press continued helping Obama and his administration in hiding the facts or in ignoring the story. Most liberals have bought into the Obama and liberal lies about that event, and now that the truth is finally getting out, most of those ignorant Obama followers will be wondering why the story resurfaced, while in reality, the story was never over. You are exactly like one of those faithful and ignorant liberal followers. You're beyond help.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You provide no references, links, or other support for what you say are fact. In fact, your 'facts' appear to be your opinions, and also appear to bear no relationship to reality.

adornoe
adornoe

to make intelligent decisions, and to make informed opinions? Thus far, you are failing to understand the real causes for the problems that exist in the economy and in the country. You need to start doing some thinking outside the box; the liberal box, that is.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

People would then use all the facts to form their opinions, rather than ignoring those facts that disagree with their beliefs or that make them uncomfortable. But you don't see me going on and on about it...

adornoe
adornoe

Medicare Part D was, in fact, passed under Bush and the republicans. I, and most republicans, were incensed by what Bush did. That was a program which most republicans voters were against. But, what Bush did and what republicans in congress were merely doing, is trying to usurp an issue from the democrats. When Medicare was passed, it was always the intentions of democrats to come back and revisit the program in order to try to pass some sort of coverage for medicines. What democrats in congress were angry about, was the fact that, Bush and republicans had taken an social program from them. The democrats wanted to be the ones to pass some sort of medicine coverage for Medicare, and the republicans had the never to take that issue from them. You can be sure that, if Bush hadn't done it, that Obama and the democrats would have done it by now. When it comes to the coverage for the Part D, it was funded for, and in fact, recent estimates have the program costing less then originally estimated. With the huge tax revenues that the economy brought in in the fist 6 years of Bush's economy, there was plenty of money to pay for the program. Bush's never attained a balanced budget, but he got pretty close towards the end of his second term. It's the economic downturn which prevented the budget from ever getting balanced. And, that economic collapse was, again, caused by another program which the democrats created. That was the CRA, which was made worse by the bad dealings from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which were being run by democrats. Face it, liberals and progressives and socialists, are always destructive to any economy and any country. Liberalism and socialism should be outlawed. ;)

adornoe
adornoe

Offshore is still very popular, especially when it comes to manufacturing. It is still a lot cheaper to get labor overseas, and production costs are still a lot lower in other countries. There might be some areas where the costs of doing business doesn't offer an advantage, like in call centers, but, for the majority of what is offshored, there is still an advantage outside the U.S. With the high costs of labor, and the high tax rates in the U.S., and the massive number of regulations which hamper productivity, it's a no-brainer for companies to do a lot of their production overseas. Point of advice: don't partake in a discussion where you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

adornoe
adornoe

and it's instructive to those who are naive and ignorant, just like you and your "economics professor". There are many millions who understand why I'm talking about, and there are many millions who don't understand or refuse to understand or hear the message. The naive and ignorant are those who helped to elect the most ignorant president ever in history. I'm quite sure you cast your vote for that idiot.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Same old, same old....nobody but you knows anything, nobody but you is correct, nobody else could possibly have valid opinions, anybody who disagrees doesn't know what they are talking about, blah, blah, blah. It's boring.

adornoe
adornoe

doesn't understand what I'm talking about, then he's just as ignorant about economics as you are. And tell him I said so. Heck, even the old USSR had "economics professors" and look how well that turned out. Similarly, Obama is now the leader of the democrats when it comes to economics, and he never actually ran anything in his life, not even a lemonade stand. You know what they say about teachers: "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." BTW, one doesn't have to be an economics professor to understand economics, and your economics professor is likely just another left-wing idiot with no real understanding of economics.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

wants to know wtf you're talking about.

adornoe
adornoe

in the current economic system, where government intrusion into the markets has distorted the whole economic system. Supply and demand works quite well where there is not intervening third or fourth force distorting the logic. The product will not be produced if the demand isn't there. Simple enough. The demand won't be there, if people don't want or need the product. Simple enough there too. But, the demand won't be there if people don't have the money with which to purchase things they want or need. Therefore, products won't be produced when people don't have the money. People won't have the money because they are out of work, or are having to take on part-time jobs, or have to become under-employed (meaning people with a lot of training who have had to take on "menial" jobs that pay them a lot less than their training was intended for, like an accountant that ends up working at McDonalds or just doing clerical work). When people end up unemployed, or in part-time work, or underemployed (like is the case currently with many millions of people in the U.S. alone), then the demand for goods and services from them, will be a lot less than before they got into that situation. IOW, people who can't afford a product or a service, won't be in the market for that product or service, and so, companies won't be producing as much of that product or service. That is very basic common sense, and basic economics. The bigger question is, what has caused people to get into the conditions they're in? Well, a company with less money in its bottom line, won't be hiring as much, and if they do, they'll be hiring people on a part-time basis, in order to not have to pay benefits. When companies stop hiring or do a lot of hiring on a part-time basis instead of full-time, then, employees will have a lot less to spend, and those who ended up unemployed won't have any money to spend. Companies will have a lot less in their bottom lines when they have very high expenses. One of those expenses is the higher taxes which companies have to pay in the U.S., which is one of the reasons that companies such as Apple keep a lot of their huge cash reserves overseas, and do their production and hiring overseas. What the U.S. government can't get its hands on, will result in a net increase to the bottom line of any company which has a way of keeping it away from the U.S. So, high taxation has a way of keeping a company from growing, and it always results in people getting laid off, or getting a lower salary, or just working part-time. All of those conditions result in people having less money, which decreases their purchasing power, which means that, they won't be demanding much by way of products and services. Thus, the demand side of the "supply and demand" equation will have been decreased, which then forces companies to reduce their supplies. Demand comes first, and the supply comes later. If the demand isn't there, the supply wont be there either. The demand by the people has been destroyed, indirectly, by higher taxes. Then, there is the high cost of complying with regulations, and the more regulations there are imposed, the lower the bottom line to all corporations whose costs have increased. Regulations are very expensive, and in many cases, can be even higher than the cost of taxation. So, again, the bottom line for a company is reduced, which means that, many companies will have to lay off people, or pay less for full-time employees, or just hire more part-time workers. That again reduces the buying power of the consumer, which lessens the demand for products and services, which then forces companies to reduce their supplies, or in many case, to just shut down operations or move operations and jobs overseas. That, again, is simple economics, and simple common sense. But, the number of regulations also distort the demand side of the "supply and demand" equation. If you'll notice, the demand side is directly affected by people becoming unemployed, or underemployed, or becoming just part-time workers. The demand side directly affects the amount of supply, and companies have to adjust based on the demand. The less the demand, the lower the supply. In all cases where the demands was distorted, it was because of the rising costs to corporations, and corporations always save the most when they adjust their staff, via lay offs, or lower salaries/benefits, or lesser work-hours. So, what distorted the demand, and the whole "supply and demand" equation? In the U.S., it's the high cost of government, which has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the biggest number of costly regulations Every company that does business in the U.S., and that has commented on the conditions and repercussions, have always pointed to the high cost of taxes and regulations in the country. And they have always warned that, if conditions continue to get worse, or remain the same, that many of them will just move operations and jobs to more amicable and less expensive locations. It's a no-brainer, and simple common sense. Here's a simple test for you: A two car crash occurs in which people get injured. After investigations for the causes, it's determined that, one of the drivers was texting while driving. The driver that was texting was found guilty of driving while texting, and he has to pay for the injuries and damage (if he's got auto insurance, the insurance company might pay). However, what was it that caused the accident? Was it the cars, or the drivers, or some other circumstance which caused a driver to be driving "distracted"? The distracted driver is at fault. But, would the distracted driver have caused the accident if the didn't have the smartphone with which he was texting. The indirect cause was the texting, because without it, the accident would probably not have occurred. So, we have a two car crash, and the cause of the injuries is the crash. With your type of straight-line and simple thought-process, that would be the end of it, the car crash. But, under more scrutiny, there is a third cause, that being the indirect real cause, that being the texting. In supply and demand, there are always other indirect causes for why the "supply and demand" equation doesn't function as expected. There is a distortion in the market place, just as there is in the driving of automobiles. Take away the distorting mechanisms, and driving would be a lot less dangerous, and supply and demand would work as explained in economics 101. I don't expect you to follow the logic, since it's probably too complicated for you, even as simple as I attempted to make it for you. But, do try to understand that, nothing is as simple as what the immediate circumstances make things appear to be. Dog bites a man, but, why did the dog bite in the first place? Think, and you will begin to understand.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I've told you why employers don't want to hire: there's no need for them to hire because there's no demand for their products. I've told you that more than once. But based on your responses, you actually believe that businesses only look at tax and regulation costs when making hiring decisions and don't consider demand for their products at all. This demonstrates total ignorance of how real businesses make actual decisions as well as a gross misunderstanding of the basic economic concept of supply and demand, such that your economic recommendations aren't worth the effort it takes to read them. Have a nice day.

adornoe
adornoe

But, the biggest problem for you is that, you're very much in denial, and/or you're stuck with a primitive thought process that plagues most liberals. You can't see the forest for the trees, and you can only think about matters in very simple terms. IN fact, you accuse me of using correlation to assume causation, but, it's actually you and all liberals, and all of the simple-minded who cannot see beyond a two-step process, where, for example, you assume that, unemployment is caused by employers not wanting to hire, but, you can't think about why employers wouldn't want to hire. The reason why employers don't want to hire is a step before employers don't want to hire. It's too complicated for your very simple mind. ;)

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

From a very simple person. It also makes invalid assumptions, ignores both basic economics and reality, and includes a correlation-causation fallacy,

adornoe
adornoe

and so, the common sense involved in the current state of the economy will be way over your head. People don't have the money to spend. Why? Because, companies aren't hiring. Why? Because. the high tax rates, and the massive number of regulations are hampering the growth of companies everywhere. And because, there is a great deal of uncertainty and fear with the upcoming implementation of Obamacare. Nobody is going to be hiring when they expect a huge added cost to hiring new employees, and in the expected increased costs for current employees. Thus, companies are being left with a lot less money to run operations and for hiring. It's as simple as: if A causes B, and B causes C, then C was caused by A. It's very simple logic, which apparently is way over your head.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

If only government will get out of the way, businesses will spend money to hire people and make more products and they will do this even though the products they are already providing aren't selling because nobody has the money to buy them. Right. Makes perfect sense. Or not.

adornoe
adornoe

very easy and obvious, and I've already given you the solution, many times, but, as blind as you are, and as much in denial that you want to remain, you won't ever recognize those solutions. The problems were created by big government, with high government spending. And the problems were made bigger with the massive number of regulations passed by that same government. So, the solution is as simple as "stop doing the stupid things that are creating the problem". It's like that joke where the patient tells the doctor that he gets a pain in the elbow every time he twists and bends it, and the doctor tells him to stop doing it, and it wont hurt. Oftentimes, the solutions are so obvious and so simple that, people won't recognize them. They expect that, solutions have to be difficult. The only difficult part of the solutions is the hardship will be caused, initially, with the cutting in spending, and with the lowering of taxes. But, the amount of revenue coming in to the government will soon after start to increase, and to actually grow much bigger than before the cutbacks and the lowered taxes. The increased revenue should allow governments to fund the necessary programs, while the private sector will have increased the number of jobs, to the point where dependency on government will decrease drastically. The idea is to allow the private sector to prosper and create jobs, while cutting back on government spending and decreasing dependency on government. That formula has always worked. The problem is that, when the economy prospers, and more revenue comes in to the government, that politicians will always want to spend that money by creating more government programs, and that's where the economy gets hurt when the next cyclical economic downturn comes around, and the country becomes stuck with more spending than it can afford. There isn't enough room in a forum post to lay out all that's necessary to alleviate the economic problems, but, I would suggest that you pick up an economics manual, and not one from the socialists, whose only solution is always spend more and tax more, and create more government dependents.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

By repeating what I've already said. But you still don't provide an intelligible solution. How are people supposed to get money if they can't get jobs?

adornoe
adornoe

Businesses won't be selling their products if the people aren't buying; that's common sense, of course. But, you're still putting the cart in front of the horse, when it comes to common sense applied to business. The reason people won't buy anything, even if they want it, is because, they don't have the money or want to hold on to it in difficult times, such as the economic hard times that the country is experiencing in the last 5-6 years. People don't have the money, and many millions of them don't have the money because they're unemployed. Can't sell them anything, even if those people wanted or needed that thing. Again, you display a huge lack of common sense, so, don't even try to talk about common sense, because, you don't even know what it is.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

and utterly fails the common sense test. If my products aren't selling, I won't hire new employees. It doesn't matter how much cash I have on hand, it doesn't matter how many regulations I'm dealing with. Why would I hire when there's not enough work for the people I've already got? I am more likely to release employees to keep profits from going negative. As I said, next?

adornoe
adornoe

and like I said, you will never get it because you're stuck in your liberal thought process which prevents you from seeing how businesses and economics works. Here's the simple common sense: When businesses have more money left in their bottom line, they will have more money to spend on growing and on hiring, and even on increasing salaries to current employees; all of that has a direct effect on growing the country's economy. Lower taxes is a well-known incentive which has produced fantastic results in the past, and it was proven under the JFK administration, and under Reagan, and under Bush (43). The opposite, where taxes are increased in order to grow government, has the complete opposite effect on businesses, where they either have to lay people off, of move operations overseas, or go out of business or downsize or go out of business; all of those are happening right now under the stress of bigger government and higher taxes. There is a huge downturn right now in the small business sector and in the mom-and-pop stores, while the bigger corporations have stopped hiring; all of that has reduced the number of people that can find work, to the point where the number of people in the workforce has actually dropped tremendously; that is why the unemployment rate has dropped to about 7.5%, while the actual number of people unemployed continues to increase. All you have to do is to ask yourself if what you see being reported and what you're hearing from the government are true; and then you have to actually examine the facts. But, examining the facts is, apparently, something you either refuse to do, or aren't qualified to do. Like I said, you might be completely hopeless.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Outside its circularity, said argument is also based on the false premise that businesses will employ more people if the tax & regulatory load decreases, [u]even if there is no demand for their products[/u]. Next?

adornoe
adornoe

and I've already explained what the problems are, and how the situation can be fixed, hundreds of times in this forum, and even in discussions with you. You're problem is that, you aren't paying attention to what I write and, though we write our comments in the computer, with you, it's the equivalent of "in one ear, and out the other". You are more blind than a blind person when it comes to noticing what people write. You need to start paying attention to the written word, all of them, and then understand them all. Otherwise, you'll never understand anything.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Companies aren't hiring and they aren't investing toward growth. And why should they? Demand is off because people are unemployed and can't find jobs. Why can't people find jobs? Companies aren't hiring and investing. Now, how do you suggest that be fixed? And who should do it?

adornoe
adornoe

the crux of what I'm saying. I've already explained, what the problems are with the economyand "austerity" is not one of them, and it's not even what is happening in the U.S and Europe and in the failing economies all over the world. Austerity is a symptom of the problem, and not the problem itselfl. Austerity if brought about by the real probems which plague the U.S and the economies in Europe. Companines cut back on spending and in growth and in hirinig, when government gets too big and intrusive and overwhelming, with high taxation and an overwhelming number of regulations, and the many government programs which bite into the private sector. When companies are uncertain of what the government is going to do, they will take "austerity" measures, which means that they won't be spending any money to grow or to hire and to help ghe economy. You keep putting the carriage in front of the horse when it comes to which comes first: austerity, or the heavy and intrusive government. Companies are in survival mode, even if many are showing good profits, but they aren't hiring and they aren't investing towards. growth.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

And shown to fail. It's called "austerity". Take a look at the results of austerity in Greece, England, Spain, and Italy. The current American economy is in part the result of a push to do the same. Yet, you want more? If you want the economy as it is currently structured to recover, somebody has to start hiring. Businesses won't do that unless they are [u]assured[/u] of a profit from doing so. So they are sitting on their record profits, removing liquidity from the market. That leaves only government, and government employment is dropping nationwide, also removing liquidity from the market. How does taking liquidity from the market increase market activity?

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

without even knowing what action I've been moved to?

adornoe
adornoe

it's the liberalism that has created the conditions for the massive amount of offshoring that has caused so many to go unemployed. And yes, government getting the heck out of the way of industry is a prerequisite for a recovery. Start with lower taxes. Follow that up with reduced regulations. And then get the effing government to cut its spending and borrowing. There is no other way to get the economy humming again. We see the stock market "zooming", but it's disconnected from the reality on the ground, where the everyday citizen is having a very hard time getting a job and making a decent living. We can make the regular citizen have a decent life and keep the stock market zooming at the same time. The stock market is zooming because cuts have had to be made at the jobs level, and the fewer employees a company has, the more money it's going to have for reinvesting, especially in today's world where productivity is being increased by machinery and computers, which have made many jobs and workers, expendable.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Is that it's the supply of capital that drives the market and not the demand for goods? That businesses who can't sell what they already have will spend money on new hires if only government would get out of their way?

adornoe
adornoe

and right and wrong, but, there is one reality which no one can deny, and that is that, the left is the side of the political spectrum causing the most damage to the economy and families and to the country. No matter how one views politics and government, the simple fact is that, liberals/progressives/socialists are where the major problems have been created that have damaged the country. I like to place blame where and when deserved, and I have in fact pointed to Bush's Medicare Part D program as one of those areas where a republican was out of touch with what republicans wanted or didn't want. Any program that adds to the cost of doing business, and that further increases the demands against the productive side of the economy via taxes, is always damaging, no matter what the purpose for the program, well-intended or not. Good intentions, when it comes to government, is always very costly. But, good intentions is not what government should be about. Good intentions belongs in the private sector, and government should be about infrastructure and the necessary services, such as defense and police and roads. As a former liberal myself, I saw what was happening, and what it did to people who became dependent on government. Keeping people poor and dependent is what liberals are about, because, for the most part, people who can take care of themselves won't be voting democrat. The last 5 years have seen poverty go up, and government trying to extract more wealth from the private sector in order to try to take care of the impoverished and dependent. It's a ruinous policy of taking from the haves and giving to the have nots, while the haves become resentful and less productive. That's a formula that has never worked and kills economies and countries. Think, and forget the "blame" thing. What matters is the policies and from where they emanate. Policies don't just materialize from nowhere, and the burdens put on the economy and the country, have mostly come from liberals. Those are undeniable facts. It took me a while to realize those points, but I did learn the lessons and had to move away from liberalism and the democrats.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

But unfortunately in your opinion No Right or Wrong, It's all Left or Right. The reality however is that politics has never solved anything and it is up for people to live despite whatever it is that the Politicians are doing. Constantly complaining about what they may be doing particularly when they said they wanted to do it to begin with and where chosen by the people who bothered to vote is a waste of time and effort and is worse passing the buck from your responsibility to blaming the Pollies and disowning your own responsibility. Col

adornoe
adornoe

since, you have an exact opposite understanding of causes and effects. Businesses will always be hiring when economic conditions warrant it. Businesses are holding on to trillions of dollars in cash, because of the uncertainty in the economy, and a lot more uncertainty is on the way by way of Obamacare. Obamacare is 100% a concoction of the democrats and Obama. Companies will be laying off a lot of full-time workers in order to avoid having to pay coverage for Obamacare. That is 100% fact, and companies all over are saying so. Over the last 30 years, and especially in the Reagan years, the economy grew at fantastic rates, and that created an abundance of spending money, which millions of people reinvested in the economy. The economy also grew in the 90s, mostly through the high expectations that came from the "new" technology and internet-based industries. The economy also grew in the early and middle-2000s, at rates of 6-8% in many quarters, and that was as a result of the Bush tax cuts. In all of the growing years for the economy, people had enough money to pay for their normal everyday needs, and then had a lot of disposable income to either spend or save. All along, the part of the overall economy which grew fastest, was the public sector, aka: the government. When government grows, the private sector slows down, and companies either close or ship operations and jobs overseas. It happens every time. The causes for economic slowdowns are many, but the biggest cause is always big government. The last 30+ years have been the most prolific for the technology sector, and none of it would've happened without people having the extra income to spend. But, it was just a matter of time before the growth of government would start being felt on the whole economy, and we have been witnessing the a huge economic downturn in the last 6 years. Since most government spending is as a result of the big government spending, mostly for social programs, and the majority of social spending is from democratic party sponsored programs, then, logically, the democrats and idiots like Obama deserve at least 80% of the blame. Productivity will never recover as long as we have big government spending. Productivity is also hurt when that same government is passing a massive number of regulations which eat into the revenue and assets and profits of companies. Productivity is always less when government becomes very intrusive. Who the heck do you think pays for big government, and for the massive number of regulations. The productive side of the economy is the private sector. Government is not productive, and it only consumes with very little in return, other than the normal upkeep of infrastructure. People on welfare are spenders, and produce nothing. People on section 8 are spenders, and produce nothing. People on social security are mostly spenders, and produce very little. People working for government consume the wealth produced by the private sector. Any social program by government, is mostly a spending program with nothing or very little to show in return. When an economy becomes one that is heavily tilted towards spending, which necessitates taking the wealth from the producers, then, of course, the economy can't do anything but shrink. While there are many companies reporting great profits, a lot of that comes as a result of them not hiring and hoarding their cash. It was estimated about 4 years ago that, there is a huge amount of cash available by those companies, ready to spend. That amount was between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. By now it should be around 4 trillion dollars. But, that money is going to get invested elsewhere, like Apple does, or it's just going to stay in the bank, or will get reinvested within the companies themselves. But, very little of it, if any, will go towards hiring, since nobody wants to pay the heavy burdens imposed by Obamacare and the many other social programs which have killed this country and its economy. You are putting the carriage in front of the horse, with your understanding of how the economy works. IOW, you have things completely backwards, and so do the liberals and Obama, which is why the economy will continue shrinking, and people wont be getting hired, and people will continue having to leave the workforce. Now, go back and study some common sense.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Because there is no demand. Why is there no demand? Because people aren't spending money. Why aren't people spending money? Because they're in debt up to (and past) their eyeballs. Why are people in debt? Unemployment, medical bills, mortgage payments, rotating credit, take your pick. For the vast majority of working people, wages relative to productivity have stagnated for the past 30+ years. Once you figure out why that is and the causes, you will also have figured out why blaming liberals in general and Obama in particular is, at best, an ignorant mistake.

adornoe
adornoe

and bigger for decades. Most gov't programs were established decades ago, and mostly by liberals, and they just continued to grow in the number people covered an in the amounts of the benefits to each person covered. Social programs have to be paid for, and to do so, gov't has had to increase taxes, and taxes causes people and companies to look for different ways of doing things, and one of those ways, is offshoring. Labor unions grew their influence and demands on corporations, and overseas cheap labor was a way to get around the unions. But, it's not just high labor costs and higher taxes which caused offshoring. It's also the massive number of regulations which stifle businesses, which means that, they will either not grow or will have to go out of business. Regulations come with very high costs, and the costs are directly proportional to the number of them enacted. When it comes to the high cost of doing business in the U.S., the majority of the damage they undergo, has been through liberal policies. When it comes to Obama, he enacted the biggest gov't program which has businesses spooked about their prospects in the coming years, and that is "Obamacare". Businesses are not hiring full-time workers, and even current workers' hours are being reduced to part-time, in expectations of the much higher costs that would come under Obamacare. In order to not have to provide health care coverage, there are many thousands of businesses either not hiring, or cutting the workers' hours, because, a stipulation of Obamacare is that, part-time workers don' t have to be covered, as long as the number of employees is under 50. In order to work around the requirements of Obamacare, many companies will opt to hire overseas workers, who won't be as demanding and won't be covered under Obamacare.

Editor's Picks