Full Version: US Jobs and the Future
Yet another child thread from a different parent thread.
Why are US businesses exporting jobs to India, China, and others?
Why are US businesses importing workers from India and others?
What are some solutions to the job loss trend?
I've seen some comment in the economic media that shipping jobs to other countries can bring major headaches to corporations. The insult of importing workers during hard economic times says volumes about corporate thought.
Do you think your job is secure? Are you looking for work? Getting an education, retraining? In business for yourself? How's the future looking?
President Bush recently listed all the good things happening in the economy. What he neglected to mention is that unemployment is still high and job growth is anemic if not negative. Who cares how the economy is doing if you're not a part of it?
I've put forward lots of questions for debate all rolled up into the loss of jobs issue. It's a big, complex problem with deep implications for every US citizen, from the laid off worker on up to Walmart's bottom line and all businesses in between.
Anyway, the core question to debate is how we can fix the job loss situation.
Why are US businesses exporting jobs to India, China, and others?
Why are US businesses importing workers from India and others?
What are some solutions to the job loss trend?
I've seen some comment in the economic media that shipping jobs to other countries can bring major headaches to corporations. The insult of importing workers during hard economic times says volumes about corporate thought.
Do you think your job is secure? Are you looking for work? Getting an education, retraining? In business for yourself? How's the future looking?
President Bush recently listed all the good things happening in the economy. What he neglected to mention is that unemployment is still high and job growth is anemic if not negative. Who cares how the economy is doing if you're not a part of it?
I've put forward lots of questions for debate all rolled up into the loss of jobs issue. It's a big, complex problem with deep implications for every US citizen, from the laid off worker on up to Walmart's bottom line and all businesses in between.
Anyway, the core question to debate is how we can fix the job loss situation.
Hereis an article which puts the current unemployment rate in historical perspective.
It goes on to say:
So the job outlook isn't really so bad, from an objective point of view.
The causes of labor being outsourced has been covered in another thread. The high cost of US labor, combined with over-regulation and a moderately intrusive tax burden causes business to rethink its labor source. I do not think the trend is likely to continue for long. The visa issue has not been renewed, which will bring back some of the technology jobs lost (although not all).
Remember that the dot-com bubble of the 90s employed many in the IT industry. When the dot-coms went bust (or were aborbed), those jobs were no longer needed. THOSE jobs aren't coming back any time soon.
QUOTE
...a historical perspective is useful here. The 6.1-percent unemployment rate is above normal, but hardly unusual in modern times. Over the 103 years since reliable data have been computed, the median or typical unemployment rate is 5.5 percent. In the 33 years since 1970, the rate is 5.9 percent. Thus we are a bit higher than the normal rate, but not dramatically so.
It goes on to say:
QUOTE
the fundamentals favor an upsurge in job creation. In the past few quarters, productivity growth - the amount of goods and services produced for each hour worked - has been strong, and real wage growth has been moderate, meaning the labor cost of making a dollar's worth of widgets (or whatever) has fallen. This should increase the attractiveness of hiring more workers and unemployment rates should start heading south, certainly by the second quarter of next year, well before the November election.
So the job outlook isn't really so bad, from an objective point of view.
The causes of labor being outsourced has been covered in another thread. The high cost of US labor, combined with over-regulation and a moderately intrusive tax burden causes business to rethink its labor source. I do not think the trend is likely to continue for long. The visa issue has not been renewed, which will bring back some of the technology jobs lost (although not all).
Remember that the dot-com bubble of the 90s employed many in the IT industry. When the dot-coms went bust (or were aborbed), those jobs were no longer needed. THOSE jobs aren't coming back any time soon.
QUOTE
In the Human Development Report 2003, two other indices shed light on important aspects of development:
The Human Poverty Index (HPI) for rich countries which ranks them according to their national levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and life-expectancy. Sweden comes in at the top while the United States finishes last. The Report notes that Sweden, despite a lower per capita income than the United States, has, on average, more adults who are functionally literate and fewer living in poverty. This Index shows that even in middle or high income countries, inequity persists.
The Human Poverty Index (HPI) for rich countries which ranks them according to their national levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and life-expectancy. Sweden comes in at the top while the United States finishes last. The Report notes that Sweden, despite a lower per capita income than the United States, has, on average, more adults who are functionally literate and fewer living in poverty. This Index shows that even in middle or high income countries, inequity persists.
Human Poverty Index (HPI)
I'm still trying to figure out how this is calculated but for the United States to be dead last should tell us something. Personally I'm in school studying Paralegal, after years in factories and machine shops I was not very impressed with the job prospects and decided to go into something in greater demand. Perhaps one of the most enigmatic aspects of this is as a profession is that most paralegals are female (80%) by most estimates. I asked the Chair of the Paralegal department why this was so and she told me it was because men who are interested in a the legal profession generally go ahead and become attorneys. I'm going to major in Philosophy for my BA with a minor in legal history. Law school is not out of the question but it would be a very expensive and curiculum is very intensive. I am pretty sure experience as a paralegal will be a good background for it.
Its becoming increasingly obvious that manufacturing and service sector jobs are being exported on a grand scale. There are good paying jobs out there if you have the education and experience but manufacturing and service work is being absorbed by the global market. One of the more interesting statistics I found in my business Associations class is that over half of the new jobs created in the 90s was due to people starting small businesses. This is something that has been a part of the American landscape from the beginning. Tocqueville wrote of this in our early history, his words seem allmost prophetic. "The rich and well educated, came forward to exploit industries...more and more like the administrators of a huge empire...What is this if not an aristocracy?" Now to be fair he also remarked that most grown men were involved in some kind of a buisness enterprise. The heart of the American middle class is small buisness but its getting harder and harder to do.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 10 2003, 05:43 AM)
Do you think your job is secure? Are you looking for work? Getting an education, retraining? In business for yourself? How's the future looking?
President Bush recently listed all the good things happening in the economy. What he neglected to mention is that unemployment is still high and job growth is anemic if not negative. Who cares how the economy is doing if you're not a part of it?
I've put forward lots of questions for debate all rolled up into the loss of jobs issue. It's a big, complex problem with deep implications for every US citizen, from the laid off worker on up to Wal-Mart's bottom line and all businesses in between.
Anyway, the core question to debate is how we can fix the job loss situation.
President Bush recently listed all the good things happening in the economy. What he neglected to mention is that unemployment is still high and job growth is anemic if not negative. Who cares how the economy is doing if you're not a part of it?
I've put forward lots of questions for debate all rolled up into the loss of jobs issue. It's a big, complex problem with deep implications for every US citizen, from the laid off worker on up to Wal-Mart's bottom line and all businesses in between.
Anyway, the core question to debate is how we can fix the job loss situation.
I spent thirty plus years working in a union shop, without ever feeling that my job was secure... The day I was hired, the company had 8,316 hourly employees. At retirement, they were trying to cut that to 1,200 jobs or less. Some jobs had been contracted out or exported, but most were the victim of automation. The attrition rate had been fairly steady over about 28 years.
When I retired, I expected to find comparable work. I had a number of brain seizures, and something short circuited. I used to work as an independent electrical contractor (no employees) on the side. The last outlet that I installed took me 3 - 4 years.
I'm drawing disability. I got a letter a few days ago encouraging me to get training to be able to return to work.
It's an interesting offer, but I have no clue at this point, as to what marketable skills I might be able to build on. My last job interview gave me an idea of just how effectively an interviewer can say, "I'm not going to hire you because I don't like you!" I was applying for a job as a tele-marketer, one of those annoying people that talks to you after a computer has dialed your phone. The questions included:
"Have you had any experience repairing telephones?"
"Can you work comfortably 100 feet off the ground?"
"On a standard telephone cable, what color wire would the positive wire on pair 33 be?"
Five minutes into an interview, I've usually forgotten the name of the interviewer... I have nearly zero "people skills."
How we can fix the job loss situation? With training, I might be able to find a job. What type of training will prepare me with marketable skills, for a job with no human contact?
...how we can fix the job loss situation.
You have to entice businesses back into the states. You don't do that by taxing them to the point that they are forced out of the country to survive and then complaining that they should be taxed even more. You provide incentives (like tax cuts) to keep them here in the US with US employees on their payroll.
I want to share something from an op-ed by Neil Cavuto. It demonstrates taxes in terms that everyone can understand.
How do we fix the job loss situation? Easy, invite the rich man back to dinner and offer to foot a little more of the bill.
You have to entice businesses back into the states. You don't do that by taxing them to the point that they are forced out of the country to survive and then complaining that they should be taxed even more. You provide incentives (like tax cuts) to keep them here in the US with US employees on their payroll.
I want to share something from an op-ed by Neil Cavuto. It demonstrates taxes in terms that everyone can understand.
QUOTE
Suppose that everyday, 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
Some of you might argue that this little story trivializes the tax debate. But not me. I think it puts it in good perspective.
When opponents of tax cuts play the class game, remember that dinner scene and ask yourself this question: Who is feasting on whom?
The rich guy that got a break, but still paid the largest share of the bill, or the poorer guys, some of whom didn't pay anything at all? The rich guy could afford it and paid. The poorer guys could not and did not.
Some people want something for nothing and others say nothing for those who have something. I say, enough. Because the only one really feasting at this dinner is the guy who owns the restaurant. And the only one feasting at this ridiculous tax system is the guy who owns the trough — Uncle Sam.
He might like to keep us arguing like this. After all, he's getting the money and lately he's been feasting pretty well.
We give. He takes. We argue. He takes more. We stop and start thinking about the lunacy of it all, he takes out ads.
The problem, my friends, isn't the rich and what they pay, but the government and what it takes. Because trust me, the restaurant owner is happy and so is Uncle Sam.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
Some of you might argue that this little story trivializes the tax debate. But not me. I think it puts it in good perspective.
When opponents of tax cuts play the class game, remember that dinner scene and ask yourself this question: Who is feasting on whom?
The rich guy that got a break, but still paid the largest share of the bill, or the poorer guys, some of whom didn't pay anything at all? The rich guy could afford it and paid. The poorer guys could not and did not.
Some people want something for nothing and others say nothing for those who have something. I say, enough. Because the only one really feasting at this dinner is the guy who owns the restaurant. And the only one feasting at this ridiculous tax system is the guy who owns the trough — Uncle Sam.
He might like to keep us arguing like this. After all, he's getting the money and lately he's been feasting pretty well.
We give. He takes. We argue. He takes more. We stop and start thinking about the lunacy of it all, he takes out ads.
The problem, my friends, isn't the rich and what they pay, but the government and what it takes. Because trust me, the restaurant owner is happy and so is Uncle Sam.
How do we fix the job loss situation? Easy, invite the rich man back to dinner and offer to foot a little more of the bill.
AMLord,
That's not true. The H-1B visa still exists but the cap was reduced to 65,000 recently. The L-1 visa still exists with no cap adjustment.
Got a letter back from one of my senators, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that claims the reason for the H-1B visa is the lack of strong math skills in the US working population.
Oh? Any MIT or CalTech folks out there? Do I ever smell a *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** excuse on that one.
Bottom line is that foreign nationals are willing to work for pennies on the dollar as opposed to their US counterparts. That's because these foreign nationals' cost of living is pennies on the dollar compared to US citizens. Or they are subsedized by their governments while working in the US.
We can lower taxes on corporations to zero and that will not change this situation one iota.
We need to start thinking outside the cut taxes box.
QUOTE
The visa issue has not been renewed, which will bring back some of the technology jobs lost (although not all).
That's not true. The H-1B visa still exists but the cap was reduced to 65,000 recently. The L-1 visa still exists with no cap adjustment.
Got a letter back from one of my senators, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that claims the reason for the H-1B visa is the lack of strong math skills in the US working population.
Oh? Any MIT or CalTech folks out there? Do I ever smell a *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** excuse on that one.
Bottom line is that foreign nationals are willing to work for pennies on the dollar as opposed to their US counterparts. That's because these foreign nationals' cost of living is pennies on the dollar compared to US citizens. Or they are subsedized by their governments while working in the US.
We can lower taxes on corporations to zero and that will not change this situation one iota.
We need to start thinking outside the cut taxes box.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Oct 12 2003, 09:12 AM)
...how we can fix the job loss situation.
You have to entice businesses back into the states. You don't do that by taxing them to the point that they are forced out of the country to survive and then complaining that they should be taxed even more. You provide incentives (like tax cuts) to keep them here in the US with US employees on their payroll.
I want to share something from an op-ed by Neil Cavuto. It demonstrates taxes in terms that everyone can understand.
How do we fix the job loss situation? Easy, invite the rich man back to dinner and offer to foot a little more of the bill.
You have to entice businesses back into the states. You don't do that by taxing them to the point that they are forced out of the country to survive and then complaining that they should be taxed even more. You provide incentives (like tax cuts) to keep them here in the US with US employees on their payroll.
I want to share something from an op-ed by Neil Cavuto. It demonstrates taxes in terms that everyone can understand.
QUOTE
Suppose that everyday, 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
Some of you might argue that this little story trivializes the tax debate. But not me. I think it puts it in good perspective.
When opponents of tax cuts play the class game, remember that dinner scene and ask yourself this question: Who is feasting on whom?
The rich guy that got a break, but still paid the largest share of the bill, or the poorer guys, some of whom didn't pay anything at all? The rich guy could afford it and paid. The poorer guys could not and did not.
Some people want something for nothing and others say nothing for those who have something. I say, enough. Because the only one really feasting at this dinner is the guy who owns the restaurant. And the only one feasting at this ridiculous tax system is the guy who owns the trough — Uncle Sam.
He might like to keep us arguing like this. After all, he's getting the money and lately he's been feasting pretty well.
We give. He takes. We argue. He takes more. We stop and start thinking about the lunacy of it all, he takes out ads.
The problem, my friends, isn't the rich and what they pay, but the government and what it takes. Because trust me, the restaurant owner is happy and so is Uncle Sam.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
Some of you might argue that this little story trivializes the tax debate. But not me. I think it puts it in good perspective.
When opponents of tax cuts play the class game, remember that dinner scene and ask yourself this question: Who is feasting on whom?
The rich guy that got a break, but still paid the largest share of the bill, or the poorer guys, some of whom didn't pay anything at all? The rich guy could afford it and paid. The poorer guys could not and did not.
Some people want something for nothing and others say nothing for those who have something. I say, enough. Because the only one really feasting at this dinner is the guy who owns the restaurant. And the only one feasting at this ridiculous tax system is the guy who owns the trough — Uncle Sam.
He might like to keep us arguing like this. After all, he's getting the money and lately he's been feasting pretty well.
We give. He takes. We argue. He takes more. We stop and start thinking about the lunacy of it all, he takes out ads.
The problem, my friends, isn't the rich and what they pay, but the government and what it takes. Because trust me, the restaurant owner is happy and so is Uncle Sam.
How do we fix the job loss situation? Easy, invite the rich man back to dinner and offer to foot a little more of the bill.
Since when did oversimplifying complex economic ideas make any sense? The understanding is complex because the subject is complex and it is foolish to paint it otherwise. Ireland (as was recently pointed out in another thread) is the second largest sofware producing nation on the planet. It has tax rates that are substantially higher than the U.S.; however it does have a much more stable work force (thanks the nationalized medicine and an extremely well educated work force.)
Ontario has had employed millions of people manufacturing American cars over the last 60 years for the same reasons, although not to the same degree.
What you are attempting to to boil down to your 'ten men at dinner' metaphor is something called Capital Flows. These are how investment capital moves itself from one area to another. It is a extremely complicated area of study that I don't even come close to understanding fully and I have taken several classes that deal with the subject. However, if you want to discuss the issue in such simple terms then lets do so. It costs Nike pennies a day to have children and impoverished women in Asia making their shoes. Lowering taxes won't change that.
You didn't like the dinner example? I thought it was a great analogy. 
You're right UJ. lowering taxes won't bring back many jobs that have gone overseas, but it could work as an incentive for others not to leave.
Here's a few other things companies are complaining about.
As you can see, health care seems to be a huge concern for these companies. Maybe we do need to look at a national health care system and let all tax payers pay for their own insurance. if they want it. Maybe we need to stop some of the lawsuits against companies or at least the amount of damages paid.
I don't pretend to be an expert on economics - heck, I've flunked balancing my checkbook a couple times in my life. But we have to start somewhere.
You're right UJ. lowering taxes won't bring back many jobs that have gone overseas, but it could work as an incentive for others not to leave.
Here's a few other things companies are complaining about.
QUOTE
...regulatory and litigation costs and the ever-rising expense of health insurance are squeezing domestic producers who cannot raise their own prices. And government policies designed to help one set of producers harm others.
http://cjonline.com/stories/083103/opi_broder.shtml
http://cjonline.com/stories/083103/opi_broder.shtml
As you can see, health care seems to be a huge concern for these companies. Maybe we do need to look at a national health care system and let all tax payers pay for their own insurance. if they want it. Maybe we need to stop some of the lawsuits against companies or at least the amount of damages paid.
I don't pretend to be an expert on economics - heck, I've flunked balancing my checkbook a couple times in my life. But we have to start somewhere.
How do we fix the job loss situation?
Not complicated at all. All we have to do is look at what WE do everyday, adjust what we do, and the jobs come flowing back. It really is THAT simple, but, the problem is WE don't want to do it.
(un-mamed Mega Discount retailer), the largest employer in the nation, sells cheap good (the quality is debatebale though). How do you think they get these cheap goods?
Probably the greatest national job program that ever could be implimented is to simply shop elsewhere. I have nothing against (un-mamed Mega Discount retailer), except I think they are a huge jobs killer. When I have walked into those doors, the sucking sound is not the airflow, its the jobs leaving the country.
What else? Cut up your ATM card. The ATM has cost jobs. When you allow a machine to take a good job from a person, you lose jobs.
None of this will matter though, we want conveinience over job growth.
Paul Harvey said, in 1976, that by the year 2020 the highest paying job in the United States will be "ditch digger". I think he will be proven correct.
I keep hearing that people can't find jobs? I've got a daughter that has been claiming that (27 years old with a Masters). That depends, I suppose on "what job".
I came from a desperatly poor family, the jobs I took to live probably would not be acceptable to many. Thats sad, they all led me down the road to a great profession. From Carpenter, to meter reader, to Jailer/Deputy Sherrif, to furniture finisher to restaurant interior installer to restaurant site location to Real Estate Broker.
I really feel that without the past experience I would not be half as effective as I am. Are people willing to do that anymore?
Just some random thoughts on the question.
I really think WE all impact the job market, and lately, our impact is a negitive one.
Not complicated at all. All we have to do is look at what WE do everyday, adjust what we do, and the jobs come flowing back. It really is THAT simple, but, the problem is WE don't want to do it.
(un-mamed Mega Discount retailer), the largest employer in the nation, sells cheap good (the quality is debatebale though). How do you think they get these cheap goods?
Probably the greatest national job program that ever could be implimented is to simply shop elsewhere. I have nothing against (un-mamed Mega Discount retailer), except I think they are a huge jobs killer. When I have walked into those doors, the sucking sound is not the airflow, its the jobs leaving the country.
What else? Cut up your ATM card. The ATM has cost jobs. When you allow a machine to take a good job from a person, you lose jobs.
None of this will matter though, we want conveinience over job growth.
Paul Harvey said, in 1976, that by the year 2020 the highest paying job in the United States will be "ditch digger". I think he will be proven correct.
I keep hearing that people can't find jobs? I've got a daughter that has been claiming that (27 years old with a Masters). That depends, I suppose on "what job".
I came from a desperatly poor family, the jobs I took to live probably would not be acceptable to many. Thats sad, they all led me down the road to a great profession. From Carpenter, to meter reader, to Jailer/Deputy Sherrif, to furniture finisher to restaurant interior installer to restaurant site location to Real Estate Broker.
I really feel that without the past experience I would not be half as effective as I am. Are people willing to do that anymore?
Just some random thoughts on the question.
I really think WE all impact the job market, and lately, our impact is a negitive one.
Job loss is not a simple quick fix.
Why does an industry cut jobs? Either business is down, or technology displaces those jobs.
When technology improves, the number of people required to do that job decreases. Is that bad? In the short term, especially for those effected, the answer is "of course". In the long term, the answer is clearly "NO".
Look at the telecom industry. In 1970, the telecom industry employed over 421,000 switchboard operators. These operators handled about 10 billions calls per year. Today, there are only 78,000 switchboard operators and they handle nearly 100 billion calls. Should the government move to save those 343,000 jobs? Certainly at the time you might think so, but in the long run, the answer is clearly no.
We must allow businesses to use the advantages that new technology offers. We must allow business whose "time has passed" to fail. We must allow jobs which are no longer necessary to fall by the wayside. Is that callous? If you have lost your job it certainly seems so. But what is the upside?
Workers are now available to do other things. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of webmasters, a position that was unheard of in the 1970s. If not for the loss of jobs in one sector, where would the labor force come from to enable us to do other things? The computer manufacturing industry likewise employs hundreds of thousands. A century ago, 40% of the workforce worked on farms. Today, less than 2% of the workforce is employed in the farming industry. Should we have saved those jobs?
Here is a great article on this subject:
The Great Job Machine
Technology drives the labor market. We must ensure that US technology continues to be cutting edge because technology will provide the jobs of tomorrow.
Why does an industry cut jobs? Either business is down, or technology displaces those jobs.
When technology improves, the number of people required to do that job decreases. Is that bad? In the short term, especially for those effected, the answer is "of course". In the long term, the answer is clearly "NO".
Look at the telecom industry. In 1970, the telecom industry employed over 421,000 switchboard operators. These operators handled about 10 billions calls per year. Today, there are only 78,000 switchboard operators and they handle nearly 100 billion calls. Should the government move to save those 343,000 jobs? Certainly at the time you might think so, but in the long run, the answer is clearly no.
We must allow businesses to use the advantages that new technology offers. We must allow business whose "time has passed" to fail. We must allow jobs which are no longer necessary to fall by the wayside. Is that callous? If you have lost your job it certainly seems so. But what is the upside?
Workers are now available to do other things. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of webmasters, a position that was unheard of in the 1970s. If not for the loss of jobs in one sector, where would the labor force come from to enable us to do other things? The computer manufacturing industry likewise employs hundreds of thousands. A century ago, 40% of the workforce worked on farms. Today, less than 2% of the workforce is employed in the farming industry. Should we have saved those jobs?
QUOTE
Milton Friedman: "People often refer to an enterprise system as a profit system. This is a great mistake. It is a profit and loss system, and the loss part, in my opinion, is more important than the profit part. The crucial difference is in what ventures are continued and which ones are abandoned...The crucial requirement for maintaining growth and progress is that successful experiments be continued and unsuccessful experiments be terminated."
Here is a great article on this subject:
The Great Job Machine
QUOTE
New Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering the past decade show that job losses seem as common as sport utility vehicles on the highways. Annual job loss ranged from a low of 27 million in 1993 to a high of 35.4 million in 2001. Even in 2000, when the unemployment rate hit its lowest point of the 1990's expansion, 33 million jobs were eliminated.
The flip side is that, according to the labor bureau's figures, annual job gains ranged from 29.6 million in 1993 to 35.6 million in 1999. Day in and day out, workers quit their jobs or get fired, then move on to new positions. Companies start up, fail, downsize, upsize and fill the vacancies of those who left. It is workers' migration to new and existing jobs that keeps the country from sinking into some Depression-like swamp.
Yes, this disruption can be very hard on some workers who lose their employment and have trouble adapting. But in the larger sense, the turmoil in the labor market is vital to economic progress. A good part of the turnover takes place in a handful of industries, like restaurants and retailing, but to greater or lesser extent the churning grinds on across the board, in bad times and good. Tallies of net jobs lost or gained capture only a fraction of the flux in the job market. As this plays out, most workers end up better off.
The flip side is that, according to the labor bureau's figures, annual job gains ranged from 29.6 million in 1993 to 35.6 million in 1999. Day in and day out, workers quit their jobs or get fired, then move on to new positions. Companies start up, fail, downsize, upsize and fill the vacancies of those who left. It is workers' migration to new and existing jobs that keeps the country from sinking into some Depression-like swamp.
Yes, this disruption can be very hard on some workers who lose their employment and have trouble adapting. But in the larger sense, the turmoil in the labor market is vital to economic progress. A good part of the turnover takes place in a handful of industries, like restaurants and retailing, but to greater or lesser extent the churning grinds on across the board, in bad times and good. Tallies of net jobs lost or gained capture only a fraction of the flux in the job market. As this plays out, most workers end up better off.
Technology drives the labor market. We must ensure that US technology continues to be cutting edge because technology will provide the jobs of tomorrow.
QUOTE
Workers are now available to do other things. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of webmasters, a position that was unheard of in the 1970s. If not for the loss of jobs in one sector, where would the labor force come from to enable us to do other things? The computer manufacturing industry likewise employs hundreds of thousands. A century ago, 40% of the workforce worked on farms. Today, less than 2% of the workforce is employed in the farming industry. Should we have saved those jobs?
I think I would agree with a great deal of what you said. The problem with the above is that 2% agriculture workers still require support. It is economically less feasible to support a 2% population then a 10% population. The smaller the rural population that farms, the fewer the ag business's required and small towns lose substantial population.
This creates secondary problems to Metro areas because of the population flee.
If there were a solution to most problems in the Country, it would be to reverse this trend.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 13 2003, 02:27 PM)
Technology drives the labor market. We must ensure that US technology continues to be cutting edge because technology will provide the jobs of tomorrow.
Good observation Amlord.
We need to get ready for the American economy of the 21st century. Our protectionism should only remain at a level to keep up self-sufficient in key industries that would affect us in a war if we did not have them.
We should keep our eyes on revenues. If we are importing a product that sells for $30, where is that money going. If a plant in China is selling it for $4 a piece who is getting the other $26. A lot of times the answer is that Americans are getting the lion's share of the money.
We used to be a nation of farmers. That day has passed. At the turn of the century we were nearly 50% farmers, by the time of the Great depression we were 25%, and today what are we, something between 3-5%?
Our economy is no longer and industrial economy. It is more hi-tech and service oriented because these jobs create more $$$$.
We should look forward and stimulate the industries of tomorrow like alternative fuels. That is a type of government subsidy I could live with, incubating infant markets that show a high promise to be the next computer industry.
Dwelling on protecting jobs in the industrial sector is important in a way to treat the symptoms of change as painlessly as possible. But trying to stop economic change will slow down our economic growth and threaten our nation's vitality.
I think it is interesting to learn why the Agriculture industry has been so significantly reduced in the last 25 years. The low percentage of those working in the Agriculture industry has already been discussed, but what caused its decline?
I submit that there are two key factors. The first and largest contributor was the fact that 3rd world countries started to improve their agricultural practices. They built damns and canal systems to transfer water. The US exported farm equipment and other manufactured goods to these countries that only continued to add to their efficiency. We also provided them with hybrid grains that would grow better in their climate and soil conditions. While I think this was a good thing, it has proven to be devastating to this industry.
The second key factor was the globalization of the economy and the reduction of protective import export policies. Many countries started exporting food as the top export. They could do this with minimal cost and large returns. Meanwhile the US agricultural industry suffered from higher costs to produce the same goods. With increased costs and lower profits, it became nearly impossible to be successful in this line of work. Truth be told most, most existing farmers would be done if it were not for the Government subsidy programs.
Manufacturing seems to have followed a similar cycle. 50 years ago the US led the world in manufactured goods. Granted we were a war horse from WW II, but we were very heavily manufacturing based. Eventually other countries caught up to us in terms of technology and skill. Soon the US manufacturing markets took huge hits. The steel industry is only one such industry. Textiles is another and the list continues.
The US then moved towards a more service based economy and the computer technology boom of the 80’s and the Internet explosion of the 90’s drove our economy to unprecedented heights. But now the rest of the world is catching up. The Tech sector has been reeling in the last three years and although the overall economy is recovering, it is not going to recover to its previous levels. The skill sets of other nations are developing faster than the US’s ability to move to the next market. India and China are coming up fast and they have huge populations that are entering the labor force. They are cheap labor by way of comparison. Malaysia is another major player attracting major businesses from Hong Kong and Japan where the cost of living has driven wages up.
I think things tend to follow patterns. I think the US is at a crossroads yet again that will define the next generation of Jobs that will be dominate in the US, I just wonder how long we will be able to stay ahead of other nations who can perform the same tasks for a lower wage.
I submit that there are two key factors. The first and largest contributor was the fact that 3rd world countries started to improve their agricultural practices. They built damns and canal systems to transfer water. The US exported farm equipment and other manufactured goods to these countries that only continued to add to their efficiency. We also provided them with hybrid grains that would grow better in their climate and soil conditions. While I think this was a good thing, it has proven to be devastating to this industry.
The second key factor was the globalization of the economy and the reduction of protective import export policies. Many countries started exporting food as the top export. They could do this with minimal cost and large returns. Meanwhile the US agricultural industry suffered from higher costs to produce the same goods. With increased costs and lower profits, it became nearly impossible to be successful in this line of work. Truth be told most, most existing farmers would be done if it were not for the Government subsidy programs.
Manufacturing seems to have followed a similar cycle. 50 years ago the US led the world in manufactured goods. Granted we were a war horse from WW II, but we were very heavily manufacturing based. Eventually other countries caught up to us in terms of technology and skill. Soon the US manufacturing markets took huge hits. The steel industry is only one such industry. Textiles is another and the list continues.
The US then moved towards a more service based economy and the computer technology boom of the 80’s and the Internet explosion of the 90’s drove our economy to unprecedented heights. But now the rest of the world is catching up. The Tech sector has been reeling in the last three years and although the overall economy is recovering, it is not going to recover to its previous levels. The skill sets of other nations are developing faster than the US’s ability to move to the next market. India and China are coming up fast and they have huge populations that are entering the labor force. They are cheap labor by way of comparison. Malaysia is another major player attracting major businesses from Hong Kong and Japan where the cost of living has driven wages up.
I think things tend to follow patterns. I think the US is at a crossroads yet again that will define the next generation of Jobs that will be dominate in the US, I just wonder how long we will be able to stay ahead of other nations who can perform the same tasks for a lower wage.
QUOTE
Anyway, the core question to debate is how we can fix the job loss situation.
You can't. The issue is really quite simple. People want to buy things as cheaply as they can. Therefore, companies want to provide these goods at the lowest price (it's called competition). As the average wage increases in the US, it becomes more and more attractive for companies to look at outsourcing these jobs to remain competitive (if they don't, then a company based elsewhere will simply take away their marketshare). Ditto for automation. Automation drives productivity, which drives down prices. This is simply inevitable--unless you can convince consumers that they should pay more for the same goods (good luck on that!)
I see the unions, in general, as contributing to this problem. I have nothing against unions, but with their focus. If all they do is drive up wages, then they are contributing directly to companies looking elsewhere for their workers. Unions should be looking for ways to help companies be more productive. This benefits both the company and the worker (productive companies don't need to lay off workers, or outsource, or automate).
The United States is the most technological society in the world (followed by Japan). Factory jobs went out after Vietnam basically. Since the invention of the computer, millions of jobs have focused on computer-related work or computers have simply replaced man in the factory or we send them over to china or india so people there can work in sweatshops.
Also, now that capitalism has started to spread through the world, there is a lot more competition and now people in the US have many foriegn companies to choose from when buying a cell phone for instance. People could buy a Japanese Nokia cell phone and not an American Sprint or Verizon cell phone.
Also, now that capitalism has started to spread through the world, there is a lot more competition and now people in the US have many foriegn companies to choose from when buying a cell phone for instance. People could buy a Japanese Nokia cell phone and not an American Sprint or Verizon cell phone.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Nov 14 2003, 12:45 AM)
The United States is the most technological society in the world (followed by Japan). Factory jobs went out after Vietnam basically. Since the invention of the computer, millions of jobs have focused on computer-related work or computers have simply replaced man in the factory or we send them over to china or india so people there can work in sweatshops.
Also, now that capitalism has started to spread through the world, there is a lot more competition and now people in the US have many foriegn companies to choose from when buying a cell phone for instance. People could buy a Japanese Nokia cell phone and not an American Sprint or Verizon cell phone.
Also, now that capitalism has started to spread through the world, there is a lot more competition and now people in the US have many foriegn companies to choose from when buying a cell phone for instance. People could buy a Japanese Nokia cell phone and not an American Sprint or Verizon cell phone.
Well, you could try. Unfortunately, Nokia aren't Japanese, they are Finnish.
But I take your point, and I agree with it. I think Hobbes has it nailed, really - the issue is not "how do we fix job losses" it is "how do we modify the profit motive"?
Somebody said that Nike was exporting jobs because what they pay dollars for in the USA they can get for pennies in the Far East. (Proof that Britain is still the centre of the world and not the USA! - one travels West from the USA to get to China and Japan!
) This goes to the heart of the problem - in general, American companies are not suffering from international competition. Most of the jobs being exported from the USA to cheaper countries are being exported by American companies. And the American stock-holders that, for the most part, own these American companies are the ones that are benefitting the most from this situation, not the foreign countries getting the jobs and investment (although they're probably second in the benefits queue).
In my view, this issue highlights the single greatest flaw in market capitalism in its US/US incarnation - the interests of stockholders have been elevated far beyond those of any other single group of stakeholders (most notably staff and customers), and senior management interests have been made almost identical to stockholders through the use of stock options in remuneration packages.
Somehow, stockholders demands need to be rebalanced along less Anglo-Saxon lines, both to make them less dominant over other stakeholders, and to lengthen their short-termism and increase their loyalty. Current macro-economic performance aside, the kind of protective legislation and board representation of workers that we see in non-Anglophone EU countries deserves further investigation, if not wholesale adoption.
The fix is relatively easy.
1. We all agree to work for less money but same benefits.
2. We demand to pay less to every business.
3. Congress inact a law making plaintiff pay all court costs if judgement found in
defendants favor. This would greatly reduce number of frivolent and greedy
freeloaders looking for a big check.
4. Mandatory cap on all corporate executives of 1 million dollars. No perks and no incentives. The incentive for doing a good job is knowing you'll have your job that pays a million dollars a year.
5. Mandatory cap on college tuitions. By doing this we demand colleges decide whether to build grandois buildings of prestige or hire more highly educated professors while accepting more students at lower costs. It's about using the real estate wisely rather than boasting the aestetics of the college. That is what really costs.
6. Making governmental resources more availble to public both in information and funding about grants for education. Most people don't know where to look for help and it becomes overwhelming.
Lou Dobbs on CNN is doing a nightly segment "Exporting America" which he is asking viewers to submit their places of employment who are hiring overseas. The list is getting longer. Thanks for all your help, Lou!
1. We all agree to work for less money but same benefits.
2. We demand to pay less to every business.
3. Congress inact a law making plaintiff pay all court costs if judgement found in
defendants favor. This would greatly reduce number of frivolent and greedy
freeloaders looking for a big check.
4. Mandatory cap on all corporate executives of 1 million dollars. No perks and no incentives. The incentive for doing a good job is knowing you'll have your job that pays a million dollars a year.
5. Mandatory cap on college tuitions. By doing this we demand colleges decide whether to build grandois buildings of prestige or hire more highly educated professors while accepting more students at lower costs. It's about using the real estate wisely rather than boasting the aestetics of the college. That is what really costs.
6. Making governmental resources more availble to public both in information and funding about grants for education. Most people don't know where to look for help and it becomes overwhelming.
Lou Dobbs on CNN is doing a nightly segment "Exporting America" which he is asking viewers to submit their places of employment who are hiring overseas. The list is getting longer. Thanks for all your help, Lou!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.