AbraCadabra! Where did all the jobs go?

THE WAY OF THE WORLD

We live in a Collective Democracy. Not only does that benefits centrally our lifestyle (without it we all would be poorer), but it imposes responsibilities. For what?

To understand how the world around us functions (economically, health-wise, safety, legally, politically, criminally). And the Internet is a fine instrument for doing just that.

But, if one wants to stick their head in the sand, then that too is a "freedom". Just don't complain about the consequences.

MY POINT

Some people think that the good-life is when there are no problems to distract them. Such an existence is always limited in scope. Sooner or later the "fit is going to hit the economic shan". We are presently in the midst of what is called historically Age-change.

We (as a nation) are moving out of the Industrial Age and into the Information Age. That means economically we are becoming highly concentrated on Services and far less on Manufacturing. (Both are "industries" in the larger sense of the word.)

And Services Industries require a higher-level of competence than just slapping components together on a "production-line". They require more advanced levels of human intelligence (or know-how).

That's life. It's like the mid-19th century when the world was still mostly in the Agricultural Age. Then, as a result of significant technological advances in the mid-1800s, factories pulled people in from the farm-fields to not "grow" but "build products". That is still happening, but not so much in the US. Only 11% of all our work-force is involved in building products (Manufacturing), down from around 26% in the early postwar years.

See from the Bureau of Labor Statistics how employment has changed in America over the past century - here.

Production in America is highly-dependent upon components manufactured abroad. Is that all bad? No, because were those products manufactured in the US - at current hourly-rates - the final-products would be far, far more expensive. Fewer people would buy them.

End result: Fewer people would be necessary to make them, meaning few production-line jobs. Meaning less overall Consumer Demand, and therefore less Income for employees.

CONSEQUENCE

Where did all the jobs go? They morphed into "other jobs". See that trend depicted here.

That's the way of the world. Always has been, always will be.

Which is why the Most Important Investment we can make as a nation is EDUCATION - in order to assure that the overall competence of our workforce is always up-to-date. (And that aint happening...)

 

Except a lot of the jobs most in demand take a lot of training or education and don't pay particularly well. The workforce is being expected to have more skills and qualifications and work for less. So far the shift doesn't appear to be good one for workers.

To compare the "Information Age" to the "Industrial Age" is ludicrous. Information services today only account for a fraction of the economic activity that manufacturing used to account for—simply put, it's not that big of a part of the economy. Yes, there are a few huge corporations like Google, but how many people do they actually employ?

 

America already invests the most and turns out about the dumbest kids in the civilized world. The best way to improve education in America is to remove the liberal union influence.

 

I think you may not understand that workforce is also an active member of the Supply/Demand of our market-economy. Prices go up and down regardless of their nature, whether goods or services. And "labor" is a service provided to the market-place at a variable price.

That price happens to be the nature of "income". The price of labor is variable - but only up to a point. That is, the lowest price of labor should be that which can sustain at the very least human necessities as described in (psychologist) Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Prices go up and down in any dynamic market - but the long-term trend is that they go UP. Until something happens. And that something recently in our history was the Great Recession (2008/10) - which has taken us 6/8 longgggg years from which to recuperate (meaning the economy is creating jobs) ...

Ages are indeed comparable. Perhaps you'd rather have lived in the Ice Age?

Moving from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age was monumental. It took people off the farms and put them into factories. They were replaced by mechanization (plows, tractors).

Nobody complained as they do today (when they are laid-off), because Industrial Age wages were higher. People got used to a better life-style that many lost virtually overnight in the Great Recession. (This is not the first time in history to have happened and it will not be the last either.)

We are now progressing into the Information Age and 45% of our children will NEVER obtain the post-secondary degree (vocational, 2- or 4-year) that is even more necessary now to find a decent job at decent pay.

And that problem will not evaporate unless we take action to do something* about it ...

*Meaning that like secondary-education it must be subsidized by the government.

 

not at all!!!! liberals are always looking for new forms of welfare with which to cripple people and make them vote liberal when the old ways don't work. There is no end short of communism for a liberal.

 

Affording the identical set of needs in San Francisco might cost $75K/year while in Tupelo, MS it might be $30K/year. Based on your needs it is not possible to have a 'national' minimum wage. Using your scenario the MW would need to be set differently in each cost-of-living area. $35/hour in SF and $15/hour in Tupelo. Can you imagine this working?

Think about it, we get educated in the first few years of our lives before we ever begin our career. Technology and innovation move at high speeds so some jobs can be in demand one day and one to five years later have little demand. Since most people plan on working perhaps 40-45 years, at the breakneck speed of technology and innovation, along with much greater labor competition around the world, no matter the initial education/skills a person possesses, if they find themselves obsolete after five years, now what do they do? They must obtain continuing education and/or new skills. But, as technology and innovation lead the way, some of these demands are beyond the capabilities of the workers. As an employer, are you going to hire 40-50-60 year old workers who updated their education/skills or look towards the 20-30 year olds?

 

wages and standards of living have gone up steadily since the stone age thanks to the Republican supply of new inventions which make us richer because they make us more efficient at, for example, farming.

Average planetary wages have gone way up in the last 20 years pulled up mostly by China and Mexico where liberals have shipped American and European jobs.

 

France (amongst other European countries) has had a minimum wage for over 40 years. Lo and behold, it works.

You refuse the minimum wage for all the wrong reasons. Foremost of which is the ignorance of how life is miserable in the US for the present minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. It should be at least double that.

That would be too costly. Right! Your BigMac would cost a dollar more than it does today* ...

*And if fewer Americans ate BigMacs, that would not be such a bad thing since we have the one of the world's worst records for obesity.

 

Good points. I just wanted to take a minute to look at the last part. I believe education is being neglected and in fact actively defunded for 2 reasons: the top players (the top 0.1%) are no longer making their billions largely from the labor of Americans. Rather, they are operating overseas where labor is very cheap. So they don't need an educated American work force now. (Note that our education system has always been designed around what sort of educated workers industry would need.) And the other reason is that with the top folks wanting profitability into the future, meaning wanting sales into the future, meaning wanting consumption into the future, meaning needing demand to increase into the future, and yet being doubtful of being able to get it, they are requiring that government funnel all it can into their pockets via tax cuts, subsidies, and other methods.

So the worker has become little more than a population to fleece in whatever way it can be done, but not a population to "waste" money on with things like education.

 

Your crippled comprehension that results from docile acceptance of brainwashing always leads you to such expressions of confusion. You never demonstrate any ability to separate-out one's concern for the future of the country from your accusations of rank, blind, partisan insanity. It's almost as though you want to see others in the worst possible light.

 

Poor people eat McDoubles. Big Macs have a premium price these days.

 

And next you'll be crying and moaning about how awful the partisan divisions have gotten and that they're tearing us apart. But you'll blame "libcommies".

 

Nice movie plot. Try selling it Hollywood?

What happened in the US was already beginning in the early 1990s, when (and as of that year) the Bamboo Curtain came crashing down. America was a signatory of the WTO trade-agreements (and even Donald Dork could not refuse those today).

The Chinese came in a cheap-labor left the US. And without NAFTA it would have been even worse. Economic calamities happen.

I don't know who taught the people on this forum that a market-economy is just one straight positive line constantly providing good salaries. It never has been an never will be - and anyone who believes that is a damn fool.

We are transiting a major change in Ages - from the Industrial to the Information Age. That will require key transformations in our workforce. Notably the necessity for higher education, cheaply and quickly.

My readings of the National Education Research Center (of the Dept. of Education) data indicate to me that 45% of American high-schoolers WILL NEVER EVER EARN A POST-SECONDARY DEGREE. (Which means vocational, 2 & 4-year studies and more).

And it will only get worse because - like the fools we are - we did not elect Hillary who had promised (for families earning less than $100K in a nation where the average salary is $54K) that their children would benefit from a full subsidy of their post-secondary degree costs at a state institution of higher learning.

Dumb is as dumb does ...

 

You seem to want very much to conflict no matter what, even when I've agreed with you. I give up. You're on your own.

 

If you want people to always agree with you, join a church-group.

This is a "debate forum". People who debate rarely agree, or there is no debate.

Get it?

 

No, I don't get it and neither do you. We weren't "debating". I agreed with you and you attacked. James replied to you and you attacked me for it. I pointed it out and you attack me.

Have you seen a shrink lately?

 

The title of the site is "Debate Forum".

YOU were not debating. You were pontificating.

I was and you did not like at all the rebuttals. So, now you've resorted to sarcasm.

Moving right along ...

 

"You" who?

Learn to use the quotation function such that the person concern is identified ...

 

What France does has nothing in common with what the US needs to do?

I don't refuse anything??

Speaking of ignorance, in the US, very few workers earn $7.25/hour or anywhere close to it. In most major cities they have established MW's that are $10-$15/hour. What you further don't understand is that in the major cities, or employment areas, your simplistic 'at least double that' MW doesn't solve a single problem. Middle wage and upper-middle wage workers cannot afford to live in these areas.

Your example of the BigMac, in which the price would be a dollar higher, doesn't make any difference for those with means, however, it is a huge impact on all of those you pretend to represent. And it's not just higher prices for BigMacs...it's higher prices for everything! So when you force higher costs to business all you're doing is forcing higher costs to consumers.

Here's the problem as I see it; you and others have failed to clearly and concisely define the problem. You just whine 'give everyone more money' as if this will solve any problems? You further ignore the impacts to business as if it's no big deal...but it is a big deal to consumers...

 

And here is mine: You don't know the first damn thing about poverty, and likely never will because you're mind is impervious to the facts.

There are more than 45 million Americans "stuck" below the Poverty Threshold (example: average salary of $24K yearly, family of 4). That's about the combined population of, say, California and Indiana.

This following statistic comes from the Census Bureau, Preliminary Estimate of Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds for 2016. And I quote:

That $12.5K breaks down to $6 an hour, and the $16K annual wage is $7.69 an hour (for a 40 hour week).

So you call the Census Bureau* and tell them what a bunch of Pinko-Commie LIARS they are ... !

*Census Bureau telephone number: 1-800-923-8282 (Have fun!)

 

First, you don't know anything about me so why go there?

Once again you fail to identify a problem and never provide any reasonable solutions?? Above you are claiming that people are 'stuck' below some imaginary poverty line of $24K. Why is it you believe that business/industry are responsible to pay all workers in this category 100% more than they currently are earning? Do you think business/industry have money trees? Do you think the consumer will pay higher and higher prices because you double the cost of labor?

Now let's try some honesty instead of BS. I'm a business owner, a farmer, and my workers earn $17/hour to $25/hour depending on their skills. Where I live the median price for a home is $750K. Please explain with your finite wisdom how much you believe I should pay my workers? I can also tell you that my products cannot have price increases because of foreign competition. This is reality buddy...

 

Imaginary, me arse. Go do you mental masturbations in some other forum.

Moving right along ...

 

Your comments are highly indicative of who you are. You think you are "hiding" behind a pseudo?

Wrong again.

Never wrote anything even remotely similar to the above idiocy. Of course companies are not "responsible" for unemployment, except indirectly when forced by market circumstances to lay people off.

If workers in America got the sack because Mexicans could do the same job for 15% of the cost, then somebody better wake up and start looking for alternative solutions. Because the law of competition works not only on a national level for goods/services but on an international level for labor (and profits)!

No, this is reality 'buddy". You have misrepresented the problem to suit your hypotheses.

People find housing in accordance with their means. If you live in a $750K house, it is because your income can afford it. Not everybody should have that income, and not everybody lives in $750K houses.

You argument is false. Period.

And here's a bit of reality for you.

You should be obliged by law to offer them a Minimum Salary of $15 hour, and if that was indeed the law, you would have no competition worth mentioning in the US.

Because you are a farmer, already you are benefiting from a natural fact of "large production capacity". So, you are also likely to be highly mechanized and you don't employ shop-workers producing widgets that sell of $3 each. (China/Vietnam/Cambodia/the Philippines do that, and not the US.)

Such is the way of the world, and your idea of paying a going rate below the Poverty Threshold is not only unfair (and to your self-advantage personally) but criminal - given the way people are forced live a subsistence existence at that salary level.

So, of course, when they resort to thieving, yessireee, throw the bums in jail!

There is never a cogent reason when debating with people like you. You are all basic emotion and no thoughtful intellect ...

 

And here is a bit of news for you.

I live in a part of France that is one of three major suppliers of wheat. The tracts of land would make you laugh-out-loud, they are comparatively very, very small. So, what does France do because it hires so many farmers all with some very sophisticated machinery (that costs an arm-and-a-leg)?

It supports higher farm prices than the US. For instance, from here:

In France, one liter of milk costs 1.0€. 1 Euro per liter = 4.22 U.S. dollars per US gallon. The retail cost premium in the Europe (over the US) is about 20%. Not that much to save farming manpower that is declining yearly. (This year is the worst, since milk has reached rock-bottom producer prices. Farmers are switching to alternative products as the milk coming in from Poland is much cheaper. I know of at least one French farmer who has gone there to produce milk!)

And the farmers attend to all aspects of the French countryside aside from just employing it for farming. They assure that the land is looked after in all aspects. There are no derelict farms in France. If need be, they are merged with larger ones. (You should really go to the Paris International Farm Show in the Spring and see for yourself. The farm-machinery brand-names will not surprise you.)

PS: And I can give the same example for most of the above items, all grown in France. Yes, even the rice! And all much more expensive than in the US. Why? Average returns on acreage farmed are higher in the US due to larger volumes.