[cary lichtenstein]

What I find so interesting is how stubborn both Dem and Rep are?  I have pretty much been a Rep but never have been afraid to challenge some Rep ideas or elected officials. Ditto with home home course. how many others can say that?

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm curious to know more about the "virulent anti-business" atmosphere in Washington.

Is it the 30 million or so new customers that will be coming to private health insurance companies?

What 30 million new customers ?
The one's who aren't going to pay premiums for any coverage ?
The one's with pre-existing conditions, who refused/neglected to buy insurance previously, who will now help to put healthcare costs deeper in the hole with claims where no premiums have been paid.

Is it the fact that GM is still in business (and beginning to look potentially profitable), along with dozens of suppliers, retailers, and hundreds of thousands of employees?  

Still in business ?  For whose benefit ?
Certainly not the BONDHOLDERS, who were abandoned and left with an almost worthless investment.
Certainly not the Shareholders.
All those people who had bonds and stocks in their 401 K got killed.  So, who has benefited ?
The new owners, the unions, for them it's been a windfall

Is it the gradual recovery of credit markets, which two years ago were teetering on the brink of total collapse?

What have I missed?  I thought I was paying attention...  

You weren't.

Business is lousy, unemployment at record highs.

Have you been overseas for a few years ?

Patrick,
Private insurance companies are going to get a windfall from individuals like my 22 yr. old daughter, who must now pay her own way in the realm of health insurance.  She is no longer a student, and automatically left my policy on May 31st following her college graduation.  She has a job on Madison Ave. with a company that offers health insurance to its employees; she must now either purchase coverage or pay a tax to cover her share of the costs; she has opted to purchase coverage.  There are millions like her; that has been the situation of the vast majority of the uninsured in this country, and it is why health care stocks have prospered since the passage of the legislation.  Like it or not, it is NOT anti-business legislation.

As to GM, I curious as to how that is anti-business either.  Had GM gone under, so would hundreds of companies in their supply chain for steel, plastic, carpet, paint, electronics, and so on.  The domino effect of that would have been unacceptable, and would even have extended to the foreign car companies who have factories in this country and would have been unable to get needed parts as well.  Of course GM stock and bond holders were clobbered, but NOT by Washington!  They were clobbered by decades of mismanagement by the company.

You say that unemployment is at a record high, which of course is not the case.  As recently as 1982 and 1983 we had higher averages than in 2009, and we averaged close to 8% for most of the 80's under President Reagan.  You are completely correct that unemployment is recovering much more slowly than other indicators in the economy.  That is standard for recoveries, and the deeper the recession the more unemployment lags during the recovery as companies move toward full production with the employees they have left before hiring or rehiring.  There is nothing surprising in that, though it is always dismaying.  

Whether or not business is still "lousy" depends on which economist(s) and which set of statistics you choose to pay attention to.  But if it IS, it is NOT because of any policies in Washington that you have listed here.

[David_Tepper]

"Do you think the stock market increase has any impact on creating new jobs ?"

Pat -

I have been a registered investment advisor for 20 years and been in the investment business for over 30 years. Even though I am not the David Tepper of Appaloosa Capital fame and enormous fortune, I would be happy to compare the results I have achieved for my clients to any benchmark one might care to offer. Attempting to understand the economy and the investment markets of this country and the rest of the world is something I have confronted daily for 3 decades.  

The fact of the matter is that, historically, job creation does indeed have a very strong correlation to how the stock market is doing. The stock market is, and always has been, a leading indicator. There is no doubt in my mind that job creation will follow.

To further quell some of the fear mongering that is running rampant here, the current economic data shows that, compared to the last 2 major recessions in this country (1991 & 2001, thank you Bush & son! ), in terms of private job creation, hours worked, incomes and consumer spending, the current recovery is at least on par and in some areas far stronger.

Those are facts. Feel free to ignore them if you care to.

P.S. See attached article. Ford Motors is HIRING is for first time in years:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ford-keeps-rolling-as-net-apf-3123922279.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

DT    

[Terry Lavin]

Well, it's obvious, isn't it, that the economy and private clubs would be in such better shape if we had McCain and Palin steering the ship these past two years?

[Patrick_Mucci]

[
Patrick,
Private insurance companies are going to get a windfall from individuals like my 22 yr. old daughter, who must now pay her own way in the realm of health insurance.  She is no longer a student, and automatically left my policy on May 31st following her college graduation.  She has a job on Madison Ave. with a company that offers health insurance to its employees; she must now either purchase coverage or pay a tax to cover her share of the costs; she has opted to purchase coverage.

Very few of your statements are true.

1.  Your daughter can remain on your coverage as an eligible dependent until she's 26.
     If you have other children on your plan who are students or under 19, there is NO additional cost for her coverage.

2.  There is NO TAX if your daughter opts NOT to take coverage under her employer's current plan
     That's a blatant lie 

There are millions like her; that has been the situation of the vast majority of the uninsured in this country, and it is why health care stocks have prospered since the passage of the legislation.

If by millions, you're refering to those people who made the choice, who ELECTED NOT to be covered, you're correct, but, that was their choice, they weren't prevented from obtaining coverage, they just didn't want to pay for it.  

Like it or not, it is NOT anti-business legislation.

Really, then why did the mandates exempt unions for eight years until 2016.
It's going to bankrupt companies, especially small companies who can ill afford coverage

As to GM, I curious as to how that is anti-business either.  Had GM gone under, so would hundreds of companies in their supply chain for steel, plastic, carpet, paint, electronics, and so on.  The domino effect of that would have been unacceptable, and would even have extended to the foreign car companies who have factories in this country and would have been unable to get needed parts as well.  Of course GM stock and bond holders were clobbered, but NOT by Washington!  They were clobbered by decades of mismanagement by the company.

First and foremost, the Bondholders got F--K-D.
Second, the Unions, which were at the core of the problem got paid off by the White House, in the form of ownership.
Third, how can you conveniently forget union costs, legacy costs, costs that made it impossible for American manufacturers to compete with foreign manufactgurers.
Surely you saw the New York Times comparison

You say that unemployment is at a record high, which of course is not the case.  As recently as 1982 and 1983 we had higher averages than in 2009, and we averaged close to 8% for most of the 80's under President Reagan.  You are completely correct that unemployment is recovering much more slowly than other indicators in the economy.  That is standard for recoveries, and the deeper the recession the more unemployment lags during the recovery as companies move toward full production with the employees they have left before hiring or rehiring.  There is nothing surprising in that, though it is always dismaying.

What you don't want to see is the anti-business environment in Washington, that wasn't there in 1982 and the 90's.
An anti-business environment that will remain with us for some time.
There's a reason we're not coming out of this recession sooner.
We wasted a trillion dollars on welfare programs that were labeled a "stimulus" bill for business and jobs.  

Whether or not business is still "lousy" depends on which economist(s) and which set of statistics you choose to pay attention to.  

No it doesn't.
I don't need an economist to tell me that business is lousy, I see it for myself every day.
My clients see it, my friends see it, people I meet on planes and on golf courses see it, even the talking heads on TV which are pro-Obama see it.
It's impossible to ignore.
You'd have to be politically blind NOT to see it

But if it IS, it is NOT because of any policies in Washington that you have listed here.

Gee, I guess it's just bad luck that got us into this mess.
[/quote]

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

This sounds like the rants of a notre dame fan who is grasping for other reason to commit suicide by  doing a header off the cart shed

[Mike Sweeney]

Well, it's obvious, isn't it, that the economy and private clubs would be in such better shape if we had McCain and Palin steering the ship these past two years?

Ok Terry here goes....

I did not vote against anyone, I voted FOR Barack Obama. Now contrary to the theme of this thread, I know he can only do so much with the economy. I disagree with many of his decisions, especially the timing (not the concept) of healthcare. I am a small business owner, I have an Autistic son on a Medicaid waiver, I employ a Saint who is a green card immigrant who had healthcare before the heathcare bill, and she takes care of my son and I we manage the healthcare of my elderly mother-in-law. I have only seen the prescription "donut-hole"  for my mother-in-law change, which is $250-500 per year. It takes time, but to date that is not much change and I see a bunch of touch points with healthcare. I blame Obama for allowing his Chief of Staff and Pelosi set the agenda when HE won the election. I voted for him to lead. Just curious but do you think Rahm will actually run for Mayor or was it cover to get him out of the White House?

I voted for Obama because I thought he would bring the country and the world together. A little naive on my part, but after 8 years of Bush I thought we needed a healer and a leader. I am married to the half-Jew democrat who hates all things RED. Even she rolled her eyes the other day when Obama went into attack mode against Republicans as he tries to hold on here with a week to go. I turned her onto Bob Herbert (too Republican for her and yes he is Black too) in 2009 about how I hope that Obama would listen about the jobs issue. See Herbert's column from
January 9, 2009:

“Just to keep up with the ever-expanding labor force, the economy would have needed to create 1.5 million jobs over the last 12 months. This means that the 2.6 million jobs lost leaves us over 4 million jobs short of what the economy required to provide employment for the American work force.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/opinion/10herbert.html

My wife is now a Bob Herbert reader.

Two months before the midterm election and 18 months after Herbert's (and a thousand others about jobs) he starts to talk about jobs. Who is advising him, and/or does he listen? President Obama, we can pay for health-care when the country is working. Just because your Chief of Staff/Washington Strategist says you can jam health-care through Congress does not mean you should do it, especially when tangible results are unclear - to me.  

Now if you want to talk about alternatives, let's talk about Hillary not Sarah. Her husband looks better and better to me historically, because he was a leader and he understood how this country runs best. Left of center socially and right of center fiscally. Clinton had his counterpart in Newt. They probably did and still do dislike each other but they put that aside, got in a room and made deals together to benefit the country. Both are personally flawed, who cares? They worked well together and the country smoked economically.

I wish the best for Obama the next two years but I just don't see a leader. Great speaker, nice guy, regular guy golfer and good father. All nice qualities but we need a leader and right now he is so far off path, I just don't see how he can recover.

Lucky for him I am working my ass off these days with a new business and I may just pull him out of it  , because at the end of the day America votes with its pocket book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

hello Patrick

you mentioned that we should cut gov. spending, I believe

but how?  it seems i read this a lot , but no one ever provides specifics (and i'm not just picking on you Patrick)

Your question implies that it can't be done, or shouldn't be done.
In reality, it's easy.

Years ago, the President of a club where I served on the Board, informed every committee chair that he wanted a 5 % reduction in the operating budget.  Every committee chair indicated that it was impossible.  The President then said, OK, if you don't do it, I'll do it. either you, who are familiar with your budgets, cut them back 5 %, or I'll do it.  And, everyone found a way to reduce their budget by 5 %.  It can be done.  It has to be done.

about 70% of the Fed budget is for the militray, SOc Sec, Medicare/Medicaid, and interest on the debt (which cant be cut)....these are the big items, but no one ever mentions cutting them...why not?  

Because it's politically unpopular and all these bums want to do is get re-elected

Let's talk about Medicare for a second.
I believe that Medicare is a worthwhile program.
To provide you with an indication of the government waste, Medicare Advantage plans, which provide additional benefits, are as cheap or cheaper than Medicare and the carriers providing this coverage make a profit where the government takes on huge losses.
WHY ?  Inefficiency ?  Fraud ?
But, since it's inception, what's the tax to pay for Medicare  ?
2.9 %.  1.45 by employers, 1.45 by employees.
If we let a private carrier administer the program and increased the tax by 1 % to employees, that would help make it actuarially sound

we have to pay for things like roads, clean water, etc....i think the anti-tax movement in this country has gone way too far..perhaps all the anti-tax people should go live in the desert where there are no roads to maintain, no water infrastructure to maintain, etc

That's not what's happening .
What happened is that we got away from fiscal discipline.
The Gasoline tax was a dedicated tax to pay for roads, bridges, etc., etc.. but, the reckless politicians, seeing that pool of revenue, co-opted it into the general treasury.  If we returned to dedicated tax programs for dedicated purposes,  you wouldn't see as much waste, and we'd get the jobs done, more efficiently

during the one of the past Ryder Cups during the Clinton Administration, one of the US team members was whining about how high his taxes were (the poor baby)....they asked Jack his thoughts, and he said "I dont mind paying taxes, i just dont like to see them wasted"....

I don't think many would disagree with Jack's statement

why doesnt politics have reasonableness like Jack's statement implies any more?  this lack of cooperation is so bad for the country...i think Newt Gingrich and the tone he promoted is one of the worst things ever to happen to this country politically

That's because you're a democrat not an independent

and re jobs:  everyone talks about unemployment...but unless factory work comes back to this country in a big way, where are all these good jobs supposed to come from??  perhaps the answer is that our country's populace needs to be better educated, which is certainly the case, since the high school droput rate, for ex in places like CHicago, is still  appalling...it blows me away to think that so many kids nowadays still dont evern graduate from HIGH SCHOOL?

This didn't happen overnight.

In NJ, first jobs were driven to PA and the Carolinas, then overseas.
When you compete in the world economy there's an inate conflict.
Our standard of living and theirs
You can't have minimum wages, OSHA, DEP, Health insurance, Pensions, Workers Comp, high wages and benefits and a zillion other impediments and costs, when your competitors have none of them, and are therefore positioned to produce a product at a much lower cost
The New York Times did a comparison between the costs to build a car, American versus Japanese.
Our wages, benefits and pension costs were significantly higher, therefore our product was priced higher and less competitive

and re Obama bashers. pls remember a few things:

1. he inherited the 2nd worse financial crisis in our history...at least some experts felt that the world economy was on the brink of collapse.....and i'm not saying things are perfect now, but why doesnt he get any credit for at least pulling us back from the brink of that?

So did Regan.
At some point and it's almost two years removed, you can't keep blaming your predecessor.
To date, his policies have NOT helped the economy and it's time he stopped whining about Bush.

2. how quickly some people forget that Pres. Reagan, a REPUBLICAN, was the one who started the massive increase of the federal debt..Reagan seems t get so much credit for helping the economy, but what about the huge deficits he rang up?

The ironic thing is that Bush did almost everything the democrats would have done.
He spent like a drunken sailor, expanded programs, but got none of the democratic love for doing so .

3. a DEMOCRAT actually had us in surplus mode for a few years?

Bullcrap, it was the Republican Congress in 1994 that did that, but, enough Republican versus Democrat.
It's time for common sense and fiscal responsibility, it's time for accepting good ideas and rejecting bad ones, irrespective of who the author is.

If we don't hang together, we're surely going to hang .....

i'm willing to discuss this on a rational level , btw

Me too

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat,

It is not I who "don't get it."

You said, "Clubs with significant debt will be the first to go since the reduced number of members won't be able to support the debt, with its rising per member annual cost."

Many of these clubs you want to save have acquired significant debt by building opulent clubhouses, tennis facilities & pool complexes...  commissioning $10 million course renovations... providing dining services meant to rival the finest restaurants.

In RARE cases, maybe, but many, if not most, upgraded their 80 to 100 year old facilities/clubhouse to attract and retain members and to accomodate the trend to cater to inside/outside functions in order to gain more revenue from diversified sources.
In other words, the "private" clubs tried to compete with "public" businesses in an effort to siphon off enough golf outings and wedding receptions to save their clubs. When private clubs started to dilute the business of the public establishments I didn't hear too much whining about how the private clubs were going to be the ruin of public businesses. It's the same old story with the privileged and elite... you want what is in your best interest without too much concern as to who gets trampled in the process.

I can't remember being in an oppulent clubhouse in the last few years, but then again, I haven't traveled much.

No, you haven't. You are obviously basing your thoughts on an archaic image of the real world.


I feel no sorrow if these clubs drown under their own financial weight.

If a club with 400 members budgeted expenses, and now, due to the downturn, only has 250 members, is that their fault ?

Would you cite 10 clubs that spent 10,000,000 on the renovation of their golf course ?
There's only one I can think of and they neither borrowed nor assessed their members

Would you cite 10 clubs that spent 10,000,000 building an oppulent clubhouse ?
Tennis facility ?
Pool Complexes ?
Pat, fill in any amount you think is appropriate for the clubs you feel are in jeapordy. 10 million was just an example... and you know that.

Your gloom and doom prophecy was preached when tax deductions for dues were eliminated years ago.

That's not true.
Only the cost went up since companies continued to pay dues for their employees.
The attrition factor was minimal

It is absolutely true as most companies stopped reimbursing employees for club dues because they were no longer deductible as a business expense. Employees were left to continue their memberships without company reimbursement or drop them. Most chose to keep their memberships, but reimbursement from the company dried up for most. I lived through that time, as did you, so you know this to be true. Only the most highly placed employees were able to retain their club memberships as a perk from the company and then they were required to report the dues as income.


Still, these clubs were able to survive and dig themselves into an even deeper trench.
Which clubs ?

Pick any club that has "expanded" or renovated in an effert to attract new members.


It is the law of the jungle that is in play here: Be Good or Be Gone!

I've always been very fiscally conservative when serving on Boards.  I was against any and all forms of borrowing and believe firmly in the "pay as you go" method of operation.  Still, many couldn't predict the downturn in the economy.
One only has to look at the unemployment figures to understand that.

You didn't base your argument on the "downturn in the economy." You based it on the government changing the tax code. Don't change horses in the middle of the stream.

Some clubs were fiscally reckless, but more often than not, many, if not most clubs made a shortsided decision, and that was, rather than pay as you go, pay as you go along, never considering that the membership ranks would diminish to dangerous levels, increasing the cost per member of the pay as you go along methodology, which in turn caused more members to leave, which in turn increased the costs per member and so on and so on.  A death spiral has begun.

When a club goes out of business, the employees lose their jobs.
The vendors lose their customers, the towns and States lose their tax revenues and the economy is far worse for it.

Reducing disposable income amongst hard working people will bring about the demise of many, many local clubs.

If you applaud that, what can I say ?  

If a private club closes the members will find other places to play golf, boosting the public course revenue... they will find other places to entertain their clients for dinner and drinks, boosting local establishments revenue... they will find other places to purchase their clothes and gear, boosting these types of retail businesses. In turn, these business will need to hire more people to handle the extra business. Thus, the unemployed club workers, assuming they were the best at their jobs in the community (otherwise, why would they have the elite private club jobs) will probably be highly sought after for the new positions created by all this windfall business.

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
You are dead wrong about the health care changes.

My daughter may NOT stay on my plan until she is 26 because she has been offered insurance through her job.  That is a fact under the new legislation.  She could have remained on my plan IF she was unemployed OR was not offered insurance through a job, neither of which is the case.  And beginning in 2014 (fully phased in by 2016), there WILL be a tax penalty for non-purchasers; that is not a "blatant lie"; it is a fact.  Bottom line?  She has to pay her way in the health care system.  Read the legislation; you are too good of a person to go off half-cocked.

As to small businesses going bankrupt because of the legislation, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that, other than political posturing on Fox.  Small businesses will receive $40 billion in new tax credits to help cover the cost of health coverage for their employees. The tax credit is designed to both support those small businesses that provide coverage today as well as new businesses who decide to provide coverage.  Even my brother, a small business owner (actually two businesses) and a rabid Republican, admits that he will benefit from this.  Again, read the legislation.  How is THAT anti-business?

As to GM, are you seriously claiming that any of the groups that you mention are WORSE off because GM did NOT go out of business?  I can't believe that you mean that.  I have read volumes about the labor situation at GM, along with volumes about the many forms of mismanagement at the company.  That's all well and good, but you cannot possibly deny that saving GM has prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country, and a much, much deeper recession than we experienced.  So how is THAT anti-business?

You repeatedly refer to an anti-business atmosphere in Washington, and I won't post again on that; I've read you too long to imagine that you will change your mind or back down.  That's not who you are, and God bless you for it; that will has gotten you through some tough stuff in your life.  I admire you for it, and I've said that here. 

But I also have enough respect for you as a person and a writer to hold you to your normal standards.  You do not seem to know the particulars of the health care bill, and you refuse to accept the idea that saving GM could not possibly have happened in an "anti-business" environment.

Why, it's almost as if you are biased and are slanting or ignoring the facts accordingly!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, it's obvious, isn't it, that the economy and private clubs would be in such better shape if we had McCain and Palin steering the ship these past two years?

Terry,

We'll never know the answer to that question and the posing of that question is a waste of time that does nothing to solve the problems we face

Sadly, the choices for elected office are rather poor aren't they ?  On both sides.

The media, especially the electronic media has made running for office almost impossible, even for highly qualified candidates..

They expect perfection, except in themselves.

I read/saw the other day that a former CEO of a large company was being taken to task for having an affair with a woman who worked for another company.

Did that make him less of a CEO ?

Did it make Kennedy less able to carry out his Presidential duties ?
Clinton ?

I don't want Jimmy Carter in the White House.
I want a street smart guy with plenty of worldly experience, not an idealistic goody two shoes.
I'll take Lyndon Johnson any day.

If you established Term Limits, elected officials would go to Washington to complete their mission, the mission of the people who elected them, and not the mission of getting re-elected.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Back to the original jist of this thread.

What percentage of members would have to leave a club in order to make it unsustainable ?

10 % ?
20 % ?
30 % ?

What percentage is currently marginal ?

What percentage of clubs are in trouble ?

[Bill_McBride]

Back to the original jist of this thread.

What percentage of members would have to leave a club in order to make it unsustainable ?

10 % ?
20 % ?
30 % ?

What percentage is currently marginal ?

What percentage of clubs are in trouble ?

The answer to those questions is going to vary widely depending on the circumstances at individual clubs.

In the case of my club, I think a loss of 20% of our dues and related income would be a problem requiring a major reallocation of that reduced income.  Golf course maintenance and F&B staffing would suffer most.

What percentage of clubs do YOU think are in trouble?  It's really going to depend on how individual clubs have planned for declining revenues.

[Mike Sweeney]

Back to the original jist of this thread.

What percentage of members would have to leave a club in order to make it unsustainable ?

10 % ?
20 % ?
30 % ?

What percentage is currently marginal ?

What percentage of clubs are in trouble ?

You mean where you were wrong about Lido?  

Patrick, you sound like a union organizer in the auto industry during the 90's. There are 4400 private clubs in America. If 30% (1500) close or convert to public you are talking about maybe 10,000 jobs? Many will convert to public so the job loss is a drop in the bucket in terms of what The White House has to focus on.

The original jist of this thread is silly. When was the last time you or anyone here played a third tier private club?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

It is not I who "don't get it."

You said, "Clubs with significant debt will be the first to go since the reduced number of members won't be able to support the debt, with its rising per member annual cost."

Many of these clubs you want to save have acquired significant debt by building opulent clubhouses, tennis facilities & pool complexes...  commissioning $10 million course renovations... providing dining services meant to rival the finest restaurants.

In RARE cases, maybe, but many, if not most, upgraded their 80 to 100 year old facilities/clubhouse to attract and retain members and to accomodate the trend to cater to inside/outside functions in order to gain more revenue from diversified sources.
In other words, the "private" clubs tried to compete with "public" businesses in an effort to siphon off enough golf outings and wedding receptions to save their clubs. When private clubs started to dilute the business of the public establishments I didn't hear too much whining about how the private clubs were going to be the ruin of public businesses. It's the same old story with the privileged and elite... you want what is in your best interest without too much concern as to who gets trampled in the process.

I can't remember being in an oppulent clubhouse in the last few years, but then again, I haven't traveled much.

No, you haven't. You are obviously basing your thoughts on an archaic image of the real world.

I asked you to cite me examples of opulent club houses and you failed to do so

I feel no sorrow if these clubs drown under their own financial weight.

If a club with 400 members budgeted expenses, and now, due to the downturn, only has 250 members, is that their fault ?

Would you cite 10 clubs that spent 10,000,000 on the renovation of their golf course ?
There's only one I can think of and they neither borrowed nor assessed their members

Would you cite 10 clubs that spent 10,000,000 building an oppulent clubhouse ?
Tennis facility ?
Pool Complexes ?
Pat, fill in any amount you think is appropriate for the clubs you feel are in jeapordy. 10 million was just an example... and you know that.

I didn't know that.  I can only go by what you type.
I agree that some if not many clubs went to excess and failed to have contingency plans and that it's their leadership's fault that they find themselves in trouble.

Your gloom and doom prophecy was preached when tax deductions for dues were eliminated years ago.

That's not true.
Only the cost went up since companies continued to pay dues for their employees.
The attrition factor was minimal

It is absolutely true as most companies stopped reimbursing employees for club dues because they were no longer deductible as a business expense. Employees were left to continue their memberships without company reimbursement or drop them. Most chose to keep their memberships, but reimbursement from the company dried up for most. I lived through that time, as did you, so you know this to be true. Only the most highly placed employees were able to retain their club memberships as a perk from the company and then they were required to report the dues as income.

That's not true.
Companies continued to pay the dues, they just didn't write them off, thereby increasing the companys tax bill


Still, these clubs were able to survive and dig themselves into an even deeper trench.
Which clubs ?

Pick any club that has "expanded" or renovated in an effert to attract new members.

That's where I really disagree with you.
If clubs didn't modernize, if clubs let their facilities get old, they had a real problem attracting and retaining members.
I don't fault them for redecorating or refurbishing.
I do fault them for grandiose expansions

It is the law of the jungle that is in play here: Be Good or Be Gone!

I've always been very fiscally conservative when serving on Boards.  I was against any and all forms of borrowing and believe firmly in the "pay as you go" method of operation.  Still, many couldn't predict the downturn in the economy.
One only has to look at the unemployment figures to understand that.

You didn't base your argument on the "downturn in the economy." You based it on the government changing the tax code. Don't change horses in the middle of the stream.

I'm not, what I'm saying and have said is that if you pile it on, at this time, clubs will go under more rapidly.
Clubs are teetering on the brink, with many marginal members.  If you reduce their disposable income, vis a vis removing those deductions, you're going to hasten the demise of those clubs.  I'm involved at clubs, so are my friends, and these are difficult times for almost all by the big time clubs.

Some clubs were fiscally reckless, but more often than not, many, if not most clubs made a shortsided decision, and that was, rather than pay as you go, pay as you go along, never considering that the membership ranks would diminish to dangerous levels, increasing the cost per member of the pay as you go along methodology, which in turn caused more members to leave, which in turn increased the costs per member and so on and so on.  A death spiral has begun.

When a club goes out of business, the employees lose their jobs.
The vendors lose their customers, the towns and States lose their tax revenues and the economy is far worse for it.

Reducing disposable income amongst hard working people will bring about the demise of many, many local clubs.

If you applaud that, what can I say ?  

If a private club closes the members will find other places to play golf, boosting the public course revenue... they will find other places to entertain their clients for dinner and drinks, boosting local establishments revenue... they will find other places to purchase their clothes and gear, boosting these types of retail businesses. In turn, these business will need to hire more people to handle the extra business. Thus, the unemployed club workers, assuming they were the best at their jobs in the community (otherwise, why would they have the elite private club jobs) will probably be highly sought after for the new positions created by all this windfall business.

That's pure hogwash.
Where are the greens crew going to go.
The waiters and waitresses, the bus boys, Pro and pro-shop staff.

Every club I know of is contracting or trying to contract their operational budget.

Restaurants are closing at record rates.

Where are all of these jobs you see ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Back to the original jist of this thread.

What percentage of members would have to leave a club in order to make it unsustainable ?

10 % ?
20 % ?
30 % ?

What percentage is currently marginal ?

What percentage of clubs are in trouble ?

You mean where you were wrong about Lido?  

Absolutely not.
If the original LIDO were there, I'd be playing it on the weekend

Patrick, you sound like a union organizer in the auto industry during the 90's. There are 4400 private clubs in America. If 30% (1500) close or convert to public you are talking about maybe 10,000 jobs? Many will convert to public so the job loss is a drop in the bucket in terms of what The White House has to focus on.

Mike, you're int the dark, only six (6) people work at a club ?  10,000 jobs ?  Try 50,000 to 100,000

The original jist of this thread is silly. When was the last time you or anyone here played a third tier private club?  

I'm afraid I don't know what a third tier private club is.

Could you list 5 or10 for me

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike, you're int the dark, only six (6) people work at a club ?  10,000 jobs ?  Try 50,000 to 100,000[/color]

Correct. my mistake.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Back to the original jist of this thread.

What percentage of members would have to leave a club in order to make it unsustainable ?

10 % ?
20 % ?
30 % ?

What percentage is currently marginal ?

What percentage of clubs are in trouble ?

The answer to those questions is going to vary widely depending on the circumstances at individual clubs.

In the case of my club, I think a loss of 20% of our dues and related income would be a problem requiring a major reallocation of that reduced income.  Golf course maintenance and F&B staffing would suffer most.

What percentage of clubs do YOU think are in trouble?  It's really going to depend on how individual clubs have planned for declining revenues.

Bill,

I think almost every local club is in trouble or distress.

For years I argued for projections based on decreased member numbers, but, alas, to no avail.
For years I argued against "keeping up with the Jones's" in terms of expanding facilities.
For years I argued against getting into debt.

But, did they listen ?

[J Sadowsky]

I hope everyone here has had fun tilting at windmills.  My brief thought:

There are 16,000 courses in the United States, apparently 4,400 private clubs.  Those courses sit on, for the most part, usable real estate.  My guess is that if the country's gini coefficient drops from the highest point it has since the 1920s, there will still be upwards of 4,000 private clubs and still 16,000 courses now that nobody is purchasing them for real estate deals.  The net effect on most golfers would be slightly beneficial in the sense that they will be more courses they have access to.  Some members of private clubs will have to switch to other clubs - most of the people who leave will be people like my father in law, who belongs to a private club in Indiana despite having free access to the municipal courses (he works for the government), plays his club maybe 10-20 times a year, and debates with himself every year about renewing.   The concept of 10,000+ jobs lost is the stuff of dystopian fantasy.

As far as golf architecture, the economy -- and particularly any distributive effects of the stimulus and fiscal policy -- is unlikely to effect any courses of substantial effort.  It's also unlikely to affect yourself, Mr. Mucci.  It will unlikely affect the clubs you belong to, the amount of rounds you play, the courses you have access to.  These tears you cry for golf are most unnecessary. 

Moreover, during the high point we were all talking about the fact that there were too many golf courses, not enough golfers.  If the market suffers a correction, this would be a normal part of supply and demand, rather than the unintended effects of the new Bolshevik Republic.

I know you will protest and say otherwise.  But something tells me that this entire thread is venting regarding politics, with only the most excruciatingly manufactured tie to golf.  It has nothing to do with golf course architecture, and if we could lock the thread and move on, that would be greatly appreciated by most.

Regards,

Justin

[RJ_Daley]

Oh what the heck... Justin, Bob Crosby, Mike Whitaker and Dave Tepper have said things far better than I ever could.  I wish you guys were among our elected legislators and agency leaders with all your common sense, and positive thoughts. 

Pat, about all I can agree with you on, after sifting through your interrogations, is I believe campaign finance reform would be the most effective policy and direction our country could take.  I think 90% of all the government waste,uinresponsiveness to our real economic and human condition and sell out sleaze factor by donation seeking legislators would go away. Perhaps public finance of elections, ample public media set aside for candiidates to get their ideas across, and kill all PACS, third party special interest ads, and our country would take leaps forward.

 Pat, I really think you are worked up over very little.  Even most golf clubs will adapt or that private club membership market will rationalize to  a more reality based demographic of who should be members and who are over extended.  Those who are left and have the resources, will perhaps pay more for their private club, and if they really love the game and the social life that comes with it, they will pony it up.  Or they will take up fishing or some other pursuit.  Golf will survive.  We will eventually get the right balance of our national fiscal and tax policies corrected for a while, and life will go on.  As long as we can keep voting in free and honest elections, we will self correct, make mistakes, and self correct.  I just happen to think the above mentioned gents have it about right.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I agree with your concerns, however I think the chances of the mortgage deduction being substantially changed in the next 5 years is about the same as me getting offered membership at Augusta, i.e. not high enough to lose any sleep over....

[Jeff_Brauer]

How can this discussion be more civil than the Merion threads?  Who would want to ban this from gca.com?

Pat, I have read estimates that 15-20% of clubs may be in danger of closing.  I have no idea if that is accurate, and to be fair, probably couldn't take into account survival measures a resourceful club might take.  And, while lending is tough, many clubs have close ties to the bankers in the community, because they are members. I hope that helps them.

BTW, upper end clubs led the last two years in renovation spending, at 58% of all golf construction spending, according to a report I heard given.  Mid level clubs were second, and publics were last.  Statistically, private clubs at the upper end seemingly are doing the best, which is probably not a surprise.  Stimulus money was specifically forbidden for public golf courses, so they got no help from that, or their own revenue streams.

Lastly, what percentage of CC memberships have you personally given up in this economy?  How much have you cut your spending at each club you belong to?  Do you overspend to help your clubs out?

Going back to architecture, in the 30's, double fw went away in many cases (when money is tight, one fw per hole seems like enough) fw, greens and tees shrunk to the minimum funtional width/area, and bunkers that were artistic, but out of play went away to reduce maintenance.  Later, in the 60's when machine mowing became more standard, green shapes got more oval to accomodate.

In the 2010's I expect all of that to re-occur.  In addtion, I expect back tees on courses 7400 yards and above may only be mowed for tournaments,  There will be more long rough, despite pace of play concerns, and hopefully, trees will be removed to speed up rough mowing, and add sunlight and air movement, to reduce chemical apps.  Bunkers may reduce in size and get flatter slopes to reduce washouts, and accomodate bunker liners.

From the gca.com perspective, not all the architectural changes will be that bad! Anyone else have predictions on how the architecture might change?

[Mike Sweeney]

From the gca.com perspective, not all the architectural changes will be that bad! Anyone else have predictions on how the architecture might change?

Jeff,

Not a enough time now, but The Knoll (Banks) in New Jersey is an interesting case study of private club that went bankrupt to public muni with many bad decisions  by the town and now restored muni by George Bahto with limitations due to:

1. Greens budget.

2. A town official or employee can't replace the love that a greens chairman or similar at a private club. Those guys are the ones that keep pushing everyday for perfection. They make mistakes, but they do so because they care.

The was made clear to me playing The Knoll one day a few years back with Patrick who played the club when it was private. He and George clearly know the history of the course better than me.

[Bill_McBride]

From the gca.com perspective, not all the architectural changes will be that bad! Anyone else have predictions on how the architecture might change?

Tillinghast spent a good bit of the Depression working for the USGA, traveling around the country covering up bunkers and generally helping clubs reduce costs.  We will most likely see a return to maintenance practices that are less expensive.  One positive outcome could be a movement toward the view that brown is desirable.  Certainly reducing water consumption would save money, speed up courses, and be an environmental positive.  Reduced use of chemicals could have a similar set of benefits.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

I thought about adding those to the list, but they are not strictly architectural, and they are already happening for other reasons, such as environmental awareness.  I believe chemical reduction has been more or less silently going on for at least a decade. I recall a report from gcsaa to that effect, anyway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()