Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

TMFDeej (99.47)

An open letter to CNBC's Steve Liesman

Recs

29

September 02, 2009 – Comments (4) | RELATED TICKERS: CN , BC

I am swamped at work today, but I was irritated enough with what I heard on CNBC this morning to quickly blast out the following e-mail to CNBC's "Senior Economics Reporter" Steve Liesman using its general mail system.  If anyone knows how to get his direct e-mail address I will send it there as well:

"Attn: Steve Liesman.

Subject: Productivity, how could you be so clueless?

This morning on XM's simulcast of CNBC I heard Steve Liesman discussing the recent increase in the government's reported productivity numbers.  He stated that he doesn't think that people are being forced to work harder.  How is it possible that CNBC's senior economics reporter is so out of touch with what is happening in the real world?

If the recently reported gains in worker productivity are not coming from people being forced to work harder for no additional pay, they where on Earth are they coming from?  Everyone who I know is being squeezed by their employer right now.  Companies have laid off so many people and are running such lean operations that just about everyone that I know who is on straight salary at a myriad of different companies from paper companies, to automakers, to food distributors, to banks, in every possible field from human resources to analysts are being forced to work crazy hours for no additional pay.

People in the real world are being forced to work through lunch, work until 7, 8, 9 at night, work from home on laptops in the evening, etc...  Working as a puppet for the Fed must be a nice cushy position, but real people are being squeezed.  Good grief man, just look around you and see what has been going on.

I'm not a permabear who thinks that we're all doomed, nor a Fed hater, just a real person who sees what is really going on out there.  With reporting like this, it's no wonder that CNBC's ratings are dropping.  I switched to Bloomberg radio / television a year ago and I don't know why I didn't make the switch sooner.  When's Joe coming back from vacation?  He doesn't know any more than anyone else, but least he's funny.

I doubt that I will hear back from you, but please feel free to e-mail me back at XXXXXXX"

4 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 02, 2009 at 9:52 AM, outoffocus (24.44) wrote:

His last name is "Lies man". Enough said.

Report this comment
#2) On September 02, 2009 at 10:04 AM, TMFDeej (99.47) wrote:

Here's what I've received back so far:

"Dear CNBC Viewer,

The CNBC show to which you have written has received your message.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. We are currently unable to respond to all submissions due to high volume of email, but we are committed to making every effort to read all notes from our viewers.

Thanks again for your submission.

Sincerely,

CNBC Customer Care Team"

Deej

Report this comment
#3) On September 02, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Tastylunch (29.87) wrote:

Great letter Deej

I seriously doubt it will ever get read since to be honest I really don't think CNBC the entity cares about facts (although there are reporters still there who do).

They are pretty much entertainment anyway. 

On a semi- unrelated note I've noticed every broker's office I've ever gone into has had CNBC  and not bloomberg on in the background.... I wonder why that might be ? :)

Report this comment
#4) On November 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Black5wan (< 20) wrote:

I've had similar experiences with CNBC and have been unable to make a direct contact. It's frustrating, but understandable.  These folks would spend all their waking hours reading, let alone responding to, emails. I found this site trying to find Liesman's email address!

In respect to your letter: it is right on the money.  If I didn't know any better I would have guessed you were privy to a conversation I was in  last week about the very same topic. We (the we being a group of former consultants to business and government) all agreed that the productivity numbers were distorted by under reported work hours.  This also results in an understatement of the work week...pegged at 33+ hours.  One other disturbing trend we discussed was the clear violation of Wage & Hour Laws, turning hourly employess into salaried employees.

Only Rick Santelli seems to understand the concept.

For what it's worth you're not the only one out here singing this mantra, Deej

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement