Bank of America, the largest US bank and one of the country's largest employers, announced plans Monday to cut 30,000 jobs by the end of 2013. The news, the largest mass layoff so far this year, is the latest in a series of indications that the disastrous jobs crisis in the United States is worsening.
The cuts amount to about 10 percent of Bank of America's total workforce and are part of a plan by the company to eliminate about $5 billion in annual costs from its consumer banking operations. Further restructuring in other sectors is also being planned.
Last month, the bank announced the immediate layoff of 3,500 workers, adding to 2,500 already implemented earlier this year. Prior to announcing the additional reductions, CEO Brian Moynihan stated Monday that his aim was to make the bank "leaner, more straightforward, more driven."
Many of the cuts will come from shutting down branches and reducing staff in states throughout the country, with much broader repercussions for local economies.
On economics, economic professors. Paul Krugman. I think Krugman has spent far too much toadying up to Barack and the administration. I don't really read him anymore. In 2008, I was on the fence about who to support and whether to go Green. His column on Hillary and health care is what made me decide to support Hillary.
I am not a Clintonista. I supported her on that one issue and did so begrudgingly because Krugman made sense. I came away from her primary campaign majorly impressed with her. She worked her ass off and she never quit when that's all the press wanted her to do. I honestly thought that she'd stood up for her husband and her daughter in the 90s -- and she did -- but that she really wasn't a fighter. I didn't think she'd had to fight a great deal. And I didn't think she'd fight for Americans. But what I saw in the campaign really showed me how much I'd misjudged her. She got working Americans, she got the issues that mattered when you're around that family table. If she were president now, I think the economy would be far better off and I think there's a good chance we'd have universal health care.
(I think she would have leaned that way and the American people would have demanded it so that's what we would have had.)
So I do credit that column of his with a lot of weight. I wouldn't have supported her, I wouldn't have given her a chance without it.
And that would been my loss because I'd be sitting here today saying, "If only I'd supported Hillary we might have jobs in this country." I did support so I have no regrets. (And I say thank you to her for that wonderful campaign. It makes me proud whenever I think of her especially in those final months when everyone was dogging her -- everyone that was a pundit -- and she just kept going and kept winning primaries.)
So the point, back to Krugman, he's in hot water for a column he wrote and some of you are expecting me to weigh in.
I hadn't planned on it.
He wrote a strongly worded column that was published on 9-11. I didn't see it as that different from his usual columns. But I don't read him anymore and this one was e-mailed to me over and over and it's probably the first time I've read him in at least a month.
Again, I don't see anything that's different.
That's not true.
He never goes after the Barack administration the way he did the Bush administration and, in the 9-11 column, he was again going after the Bush administration.
So, yeah, this is different. It's different than what he's done since the 2008 elections.
In addition, was it really smart to publish that on 9-11?
In the Sunday New York Times?
I don't know.
I know Isaiah deliberately did not do a comic Sunday at The Common Ills for that reason. He felt anything would go through a 9-11 filter. And he didn't want to do a 9-11 comic. C.I. avoided mentioning it. I believe we did at Third as well.
We didn't agree with the sobbing marathon and we didn't participate in it.
It's why, September 2nd, we wrote "F**k Unity" at Third. Jim had nixed that the week prior and wanted it to go up on September 11h. C.I. argued that (a) we needed to warn about what was coming and (b) she wouldn't want to be greeted with that out of the blue on the morning of 9-11 with no warning. And I supported her on that (most of us did). So we were thinking about what we would and wouldn't publish on 9-11.
Free speech allows Krugman to do or say or write whatever he wants.
But I do think that someone as smart of him should have known that some of the responses wouldn't be to his liking.
So I can understand some people being upset.
But I also think some people who are upset are playing at being upset because they hate Krugman anyway.
I was asked my thoughts on it, those are them.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday: