Is the economy affecting you now?

[theAdviserMe]

The economic and financial meltdown is affecting everybody and sadly nobody knows what lies ahead for all of us ordinary citizens.

How does the economy impacted you for now? :o

[KristineS]

Right now, it hasn't impacted me much, except for a bit of anxiety about how bad things could get. My job is stable and our company is solid, so I don't have that worry at the moment.

I am concerned about inflation and prices going out of control.

[Blessed]

I'm still wondering how much of the "meltdown" is actual meltdown and how much is hype. I do realize that we have some real problems but I'm not convinced that the "bailout" was necessary and I'm not sure how much affect it will have on Main Street.

Also... I wonder how much of the effect of the economic meltdown is due to the economic meltdown and how much is due to the doom and gloom reporting of the economic meltdown.

[cbscreative]

Did anyone see the SNL skit that NBC banned? If not, get it fast because they are aggressively working to scrub every trace of it.

[KristineS]

I heard about that skit, but I haven't seen it. All video of it disappeared quite quickly.

[vangogh]

What was the skit? I might have seen it, but I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

The economy definitely affects us all, but affecting us and dooming us are two different things. There's a different set of conditions in play, but you can still profit under those conditions. As an example say you sell a luxury product or service. It's likely that many now hurting financially are going to cut back on luxury expenses. That doesn't mean those people don't want the same luxuries, they just can't afford it.

So you switch from selling a luxury item to teaching people how to make that luxury item as best as possible. At some point in the future when the economy has rebounded you'll have two markets for your business. One that is happy on the do it yourself side and continues to purchase your educational material and one that would rather go back to paying you to create the product or perform the service.

Maybe not the best example, but hopefully you get the idea. The point is people make money in down economies. You just have to rethink things a little, but the main concept of business and marketing is still the same. Find a group of people that want or need something, fill that want or need, and let those people know you can fill their wants and needs better than the business down the road.

[orion_joel]

The economy is to some extent affecting me. More so from the point of view that i have a sizeable savings account, and where i have been enjoying high interest rates between 7 and 8%pa, these i think are going to start going backwards as the Reserve Bank in Australia is taking The Cash Rate down, savings interest rates will follow i expect.

On the work front, economy is not going to affect me in anyway. At this point i am in a secure stable job, the company is very stable and is the market leader. Even if the work we perform was to drop by half, there would absolutely be cutbacks, but there is a sizeable casual workforce which would be cut back before the permanent staff.

On the business front there is still great fortunes to be made even in currant market conditions. As already mentioned it comes down to adapting to the market and making the most of what you can.

In general i think a fairly large portion of the collapse and such is based on the hype and reporting. While i know as many people do their is essentially a number of underlying problems that are causing things to happen as they are, however the actual issues i think are not really as blown out as we would be led to believe.

[Evan]

What was the skit? I might have seen it, but I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

It wasn't on too long ago. It was a news conference with "President Bush", "Speaker Pelosi", "Congressman Frank", and people who were supposedly affected by the economy. It was a joke really, because all of these people who made their "case" were not affected at all.

It began with two guys, supposedly who got out of prison, had horrible credit, multiple girlfriends, and no job, but had this mortgage for a home that they wouldn't need to pay until they moved out.

More and more people "came" through to speak, including two who sold timeshares by manipulating them and selling them with a 100% profit margin. And because of the poor economy, all they could get now is just 10%, and to continue living now they may need to sell one of their yachts, give up plastic surgery, etc.

The last couple, which was really the issue apparently, was a couple who sold a ton of bad mortgages to banks like WaMu. The caption at the bottom had their name and below it was 'People who should be shot'.

When I saw that, I thought it was quite humorous, but naturally I can see how it was in "bad taste" perhaps. But sometimes you need to be extreme to prove the point.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/10/07/images/20081007_snl_190x190.jpg

[vangogh]

I did eventually see it. I thought it was funny too. I can see where some would see it in bad taste, but you can say that about most political sketches. The funnier they are the more likely the offend someone too.

I'm not sure this skit was any worse than some others I've seen, but maybe it offended the wrong person or persons.

[orion_joel]

They seem to have a copy of this on the Saturday night life site, it does seem to be editted as the screen shot above doesn't appear anywhere throughout now. But it was quite funny, although i can see how there would be people that are quite offended by it and complain.

[Steve B]

I could be wrong, but I think the problem was that they used the real people's names and SNL is getting sued by them.

[vangogh]

That could make sense. It's fair game to mention the names of public figures, but mentioning names of people who aren't public figures probably violates fair use or similar.

[Evan]

I could be wrong, but I think the problem was that they used the real people's names and SNL is getting sued by them.

Correct. If you Google both of their names, you'll find out they were co-chairmen and co-CEO of a successful savings & loan which was bought out by Wachovia (I believe). They criticism came about over the higher number of defaulted loans they had, which was irrelevant because their S&L was successful so they already profited off of it to the demise of Wachovia. Their defense is those loans were no more risky than any other institution.

What is the truth? No idea. But either way, for a TV show to claim you should be shot is quite tough. They probably should have spoofed their names a bit more. Though I doubt most people realized these people actually existed.

[Spider]

SNL is generally offensive - that is their appeal. But to call for someone to be shot is too much. Call it "inciting riot" or "inviting murder" - either way, I'm sure it is illegal. Rather like calling 'fire!" in a crowded theater, I would suggest.

[cbscreative]

What a society we now live in. Almost everything is now off limits for satire or comedy. Back in the 1960's, there was a show called The Beverly Hillbillies which the critics hated, but it was a big hit. Now they can't do shows like this because someone might get offended. The SNL skit was satire, but because free speech was too close to reality and incriminated people who didn't want to be exposed, they risk lawsuits for stating the obvious.

I'm not a big fan of SNL but they do often come up with some great comedy. As for the "people who should be shot" comment, I come from a time when that could be said and no one took it seriously. To think that this now is viewed as being like yelling "fire" in a movie theater shows how far we have slid down into a dark pit.

Frivolous lawsuits have reduced us to a culture where even free speech and humor are at risk of being off limits. Personally, I think that political correctness is destroying us. Even if I don't agree with someone, I still prefer they have the right to speak their mind.

[Evan]

Even if I don't agree with someone, I still prefer they have the right to speak their mind.

As the saying goes: "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll die defending your right to say it."

[KarenB]

This is a great question.

I'd have to say from a virtual assistant's perspective that it has actually helped because I provide many administrative services on an ad hoc basis. Currently, a lot of small businesses are rethinking whether or not they can afford to hire someone full-time, yet they still need the help.

In fact, this is a great opportunity for many freelancers in different niches. Businesses that used to hire ad agencies, for example, might be looking toward independent copywriter and graphic designer teams.

Karen

[Dan Furman]

As the saying goes: "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll die defending your right to say it."

Not sure I'm taking it quite that far :D

Let's say I'll write a strong letter to defend Joe Shleppo's right to his opinion, and leave it at that. Because if the gun is pointed at me, it'll take me all of one second to turn to Joe and say "shut the @#$% up".

[vangogh]

Businesses that used to hire ad agencies, for example, might be looking toward independent copywriter and graphic designer teams.

Great point Karen. Freelancers become a better option in a down economy because we can still get the job done, but don't require full time pay or insurance or employment taxes. Lots of savings.

[orion_joel]

I think the other benefit for freelancers is that you don't need approval from some one else, if someone comes to you with a need you know if you can or cannot do it and can make that decision now, and mostly likely tell them how much it is going to cost straight up. Which would/could be a major benefit to many in this economy now as they can better make a decision right away.

[billbenson]

I've thought for years that we needed to rely less on the government and companies to support us. The government is just to bloated to do it. The days of being a union laborer for GM are gone, with or without bailouts.

This economy may drive a lot of people to be self sufficient, never to return the large corporations of years gone by.

The people that will survive this the best are the true entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, there are going to be a lot of people left in the dust. Some people just can't do well in an independent structure. If I wanted to learn something new - say trade stock options. I'd buy books, do paper trades, go online etc. I know people who just plain need the structure of a school to study something. Same in the workplace. They need the structure of an office. It's not an intelligence issue. Its a personality issue in many cases.

As a footnote, I know people who need to have a remote office. Self employed and they could easily work out of their house. Gotta get in the car and go to the office. Another guy who gets up, puts on a coat and tie to go into his home office to work. I'm in a pair of shorts.

I think there will be a lot of people who can't adapt and are left out in the cold in years to come.

[vangogh]

While I agree that entrepreneurs will best survive, I'm not sure everyone else will be left in the dust. Entrepreneurs still need others to do some or most of the actual work. It's true some need the structure and some can work more independently, but I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. There are advantages to going into an office and know that as long as you show up you'll get a check at the end of the week.

Being more self-reliant should help you weather most economic storms, but I still wouldn't say those without the entrepreneurial mindset will be left in the dust. There will likely always be a need for a workforce of some kind.

[Steve B]

Plus, the laws of economies of scale will always justify a need for large corporations and the necesssary employees.