Jobs in the USA, how do we bring them back?

The Ross Perot 'great sucking sound' went off as predicted. As a business man he understood that business will do whatever it needs to do to reduce costs and increase revenue. That is what business does. Wing-nutty as he was, he nailed this to the wall. If you make the business environment less favorable 'here' and/or more favorable 'there', businesses will leave and take their jobs with them.

It seems to me that there are a couple of ways to remedy the 'jobs' problem. One is for government to grow existing or create new bureaucracies, and staff them with newly created jobs, but I don't want to discuss that in this thread. Another is to FORCE businesses to provide jobs through punitive legislation, again, not what I'm after. If these are your solutions, go start your own thread. What I really want to get to is: "How do we entice the private sector to WANT to create jobs in the USA again."

The ultimate end-goal would be for companies from around the world to flock to the USA to set up their factories because of favorable business climate here, and for the labor market to become a sellers market. Essentially, more jobs available than we have people to fill them. In general, for this to happen, we would need to do whatever it takes to make the USA THE place in the world to set up a business. Sure, we can't compete with wages overseas, but we CAN compete with energy, infrastructure, etc. Can we pay our workers what they need to achieve the 'American Dream' while offsetting those higher wages for businesses with lower tax, energy and infrastructure costs?

 

There is really only one way. If we had passed the jobs bill back in 2011, that would have raised eyebrows. By seeing large amounts of new construction projects to roads and bridges for example would have lured"SOME" businesses. Unfortunately, I do not see one true smoking gun in answering your question. We made so many people where that actually matters rich during the Bush years while awarding tax cuts, and then they stowed all that money away overseas, tax free. And when the crash came in 07/08, the rich decided to stay out of money making investments because the average Joe understood how this game was being played. They new we had figured out this whole deregulation, money swap derivative scheme is what sent us into a tail spin. Now, the well off are afraid to jump back in the game for two reasons; one, they now the public is watching them this time, ant two, they simply do not have too. They've made their gold, off of us.

 

You cant really. We have too many uneducated workers in our country with not enough manufacturing jobs. The cost of human labor is too expensive in our country to justify massive manufacturing here.

 

We don't need to bring jobs back we need to create economic growth through producing new innovations that will create more demand for what we can produce or provide domestically that cannot be done with low skilled labor abroad.

 

The only way is to create such efficiency in production that it more than offsets the cost of producing here as opposed to producing in and shipping from low wage labor markets.

 

Well, that's what I said. The question is, can we offset our more expensive labor with cheaper energy (for instance) to entice manufacturing to come back here? How about if we as a country were to provide incentives like '0% tax rates, energy at cost, and free land grants', would that be enough to entice business to come here and set up their factories? If so, would it be less expensive than supporting what we have now? We have a lot going for us, from a business perspective. Can we leverage it to provide higher wages to our workers and still make the USA attractive for business?

 

Well, that has been the working plan, but it's not really panning out. I get what you're saying though. Maybe NOT bringing low-skilled jobs back is just a bitter pill we will have to take until we can do as you suggest, and what we're seeing in unemployment is ultimately just a symptom of that process. If that is the case, then my entire premise is flawed and the point is moot.

 

Not really since energy is mostly provided by private corporations. To force them to take less money could also result in them employing less people. The biggest problem for us and any country that becomes ripe is the growing uneducated workforce and the growing expectations of pay for labor.

 

The sad truth is the most of those jobs probably aren't coming back.

The problem is that the American economy is no longer what it used to be. It is now a land of tertiary rather than secondary industry, but a lot of people are still products of that secondary era, meaning their skills no longer have a place in this economy. A tertiary economy requires highly educated citizens to function, but American does not have that. Thus exacerbating the problem, as companies find ways to do more with a small number of highly skilled people, eliminating even more potential positions. For example, so many jobs are now automated that the number of people required for things to function efficiently is no longer as high - but this means many people won't have jobs at all.

 

true, without some governments help, there is no American workers can compete with 3rd world wages.. unless of course republicans succeed in taking away the min wage and our workers get third world wages

 

You're answering the wrong question. The question to be answered is this: Can American workers compete with 3rd world wages if the wage cost difference is offset by other incentives to the business?

 

If the wages drop , so would the cost of housing, food, and other necessities. That will never happen so its a moot argument.

 

Creating incentives here isn't the only way to bring jobs back. Creating disincentives to produce overseas can also do it. Our companies get away with a lot of environmental, safety, and worker exploitation that they don't get away with here. They can get away with it overseas, because many people aren't organized politically to check the exploitation. Businesses should have to treat all humans the same way they treat Americans imo.

 

The only way is for the people in China and India to wake and realize they're are being treated like animals. Hard to compete with nations that have labor that can work for essentially pennies on our dollar and get away with it. Once their people stop taking it up the rear, only then can it get competitive and manufacturing here would make sense again, when you take into account shipping costs and administrative setup in other countries.

Honestly assembling a widget here is no different than assembling a widget anywhere. You don't need overly skilled people to do it. Higher quality products that last a long time is basically counter to making a profit. Companies have slowly forced planned obsolescence into manufacturing now. You'd have lawnmowers or appliances last 20 yrs back in the 80s and earlier eras. Now if you get 5-10 yrs out of something, you're thrilled. NOT by accident, I don't think. Look at what Apple does. They make it near impossible to keep a device going after a certain time because they simply stop supporting the thing and force you to upgrade by tying software to the hardware or changing accessory designs every 18 months. Its brilliant. How long before that cable needs a new adapter shape to fit into your phone=) Compare it with USB and witness the amazing scam.

 

yeah cause if the min wage went down ceo's, ect.. would voluntarily take a pay cut, not likely

 

Taxcutter says:
That os precisely what they are supposed to do.

"It seems to me that there are a couple of ways to remedy the 'jobs' problem. One is for government to grow existing or create new bureaucracies, and staff them with newly created jobs..."

Taxcutter says:
Make work. All at taxpayer expense. You are wise to reject this one.



"Another is to FORCE businesses to provide jobs through punitive legislation, again, not what I'm after."

Taxcutter says:
Again, a wise choice for down that road lies Cuba.




"The ultimate end-goal would be for companies from around the world to flock to the USA to set up their factories because of favorable business climate here...:"

Taxcutter says:
You already see that in the auto industry. Japanese, German, and Korean companies set up assembly plants in the US. Even though assembly is labor intensive, the "transplants " put them here to take advantage of the favorable currency exchange rate and insulate their US sales against further currency imbalances. The transplants almost always set up in "right-to-work" states. Almost always near transportation links.




"...for this to happen, we would need to do whatever it takes to make the USA THE place in the world to set up a business."

Taxcutter says:
I agree.


"...we CAN compete with energy, infrastructure, etc."

Taxcutter says:
We used to be able to, at least until a five decade avalanche of regulations. It has been noted that American industrial might was built on cheap energy, readily available resources, and cheap labor. The steel mills grew up around the Great Lakes because the major raw materials for steel - iron ore, coal, and alloying elements were readily available and cheap water and rail transportation was available. The glass products industry grew up in Indiana because natural gas and high-purity silica sand were readily available. Likewise, Portland cement (a staple of the construction industry) requires lots of limestone and cheap energy (read: coal). All three are heavy products and need heavy-haul transportation nearby - rail or water. All of these industries took huge cost hits when environmental regulations came along that made energy become expensive. As that happened, union unrest in the steel industry helped hustle steel out of the US.

Let's stow the strawman of "China air pollution." You could make those industries look at the US agian if you limited their environmetal regulations to those outlined in 40 CFR 60. This is a reasonable set of standards for bug emitters that was supposed to replace 40 CFR 52.21, but somebody in Congress in 1980 fouled up and didn't explicitly rescind New Source Review. all we need do is rescind 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 63 and let the New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR 60) replace them. For instance NSPS calls for a particulate emission limitation of 0.30 gr/dscf of exhaust gas. This results in a smoke plume that is barely visible on an optimum day. Modern baghouses can easily meet this standard but struggle with the 0.06 gr/dscf usually called for by NSR. 0.06 gr/dscf requires two-stage HEPA filters that are very expensive to operate. Nobody in their right mind builds to the more stringent standard. There is no safety margin. The emissions controls have to have their "A" game every hour of operation. The 0.30 gr/dscf gives you some margin. Steel, Portland cement. and glass all are processes that have potential to emit particulate. Even better, if one were to drop the "one size fits all" mindset of the EPA one could allow a less stringent standard yet in very windy areas like the Great Plains. In Nebraska you often see 25 knot ground winds. You simply could never build up any concentration of particulate (smoke/dust) in 25 knot winds. You could easily make the standard 0.50 gr/dscf and make emission control quite inexpensive. This would also tend to lure these industries out to an area where wind power begins to make a degree of sense and further reduce energy costs. there is still beaucoup iron ore in the Mesabi range and the same rail transportation that hauls iron ore and coal in and steel out could also haul in scrap metal which is an energy-efficient feedstock for basic oxygen furnaces.

These industries could easily be dispersed in rural areas to keep pollution concentrations low, but what about the decaying cities? as old industries died or left, vast swathes of cities were left with difficult to redevelop "brownfields." Detroit is the poster child but every major city has some. Here the there are a set of land-pollution laws (notably the Superfund law) which impose standards of cleanup that make redevelopment impossible. Literally, Superfund requires the dirt be cleaned to a level better than the finest farmland. This is unreasonable and as a result once old businesses are gone all that is left are derelict buildings. In an economically viable city, old businesses die off and new ones replace them. but Superfund (and others) choke off the regenerative option and only Detroit is left.

Obviously, the EPA is in the way - big time. either get them out of the way or forget new jobs.

Energy infrastructure is another thing holding back re-industrialization. In 1975 the US had a 40% reserve of electric power generation and good long-distance transmission. Today that reserve is about 5%. If three plants nearby went down in a peak demand period, you could be faced with a prolonged regional power outage. Nobody in their right mind will expose their company to that. Further pipeline construction has been held up by federal permitting processes. Keystone XL is only the most widely known. Re-industrialization in the cities will have to be powered by natural gas (clean and cheap) but no gas transmission lines cross the Hudson.

I could write hundred of pages on how regulations are in the way of re-industrialization but those of you who are not environmental extremists can get my drift.

But more must be done. States will have to co-operate in making America business-friendly again.

One more thing. The theft of GM and Chrysler from their stockholders/creditors to give them to the UAW and Fix-It-Again-Tony was a crule blow to re-industrialization. Predictable business law (bankruptcy) was repudiated. The US is now as unpredictable as Zimbabwe.

 

???? "If the wages drop , so would the cost of housing, food, and other necessities. That will never happen so its a moot argument."

Have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue where you got the drivel that you posted. What does CEO`s taking a pay cut have to do with my post ?

 

Unfortunately, there are a number of economic factors that put us where we are, one of which is the inflation of our currency and stagnating wages vs. the cost of consumer goods. Alas, it's not realistic to expect people to work for $2-$4 an hour to compete with foreign labor to make goods we can import more cheaply and it's even less realistic to expect people to pay more for them to be made here more expensively. The only way out of the mess is to keep moving forward and hope that the advances that lead to mass automation and widespread abundance are at least partly controlled by the working class and thus we can enjoy these advances by realizing much shorter work weeks and greater emphasis on independent study and discovery.

 

The question is... why do so many Americans WANT us to go back to manufacturing and factory labor?

In order to compete with China, we would have to ditch minimum wage and all business regulations protecting employees. Why would we EVER aspire to be like that?

That is what conservatives just don't understand. Those jobs are never coming back. Our standard of living is too high here. Jobs were outsourced for a reason.

 

We don't WANT those jobs back here. Doing so would decrease our country's standard of living. That was the point of the trade agreements. By keeping our standards high, we stay wealthy. We are a wealthy country of consumers. All the poor countries are producers. We do NOT want to be a producer.

 

nope, we just need to have tarrifs equalize the cost for the import of goods and services

- - - Updated - - -

???? "If the wages drop , so would the cost of housing, food, and other necessities. That will never happen so its a moot argument."

"Have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue where you got the drivel that you posted. What does CEO`s taking a pay cut have to do with my post ?"

---

if the min wage drops everything will drop you said, I just proved you wrong, don't get upset about it

 

Well, again, the concept is not to pay them foreign labor rates, nor to expect companies to make them more expensively than the could with foreign labor. The concept is, provide companies enough incentives through, for instance, cheap energy and lower taxes, to allow them to make their products HERE at the same or less cost while still paying US labor rates to the workers. Addidional incentives would perhaps include better infrastructure and better security by operating within the US borders. My primary question to the group is, why wouldn't this work? A secondary question that occurs to me is, do we as a country WANT to bring manufacturing back, or is that just regressive thinking? Are we better off suffering this painful unemployment now because it will lead to more prosperity in the future?

 

For what reason? They do all the work, we buy all the cheap (*)(*)(*)(*) from them and continue to live as the wealthiest country in the world.

Until their labor costs increase to a reasonable level, there is no incentive for American lawmakers to move jobs back here.

 

A CEO`s wage and necessities for living have nothing to do with each other. Explain how you think you proved something wrong? Your lack of logic is confusing to the logical.

 

Funny, you answerd my question at the very moment I was formulating it.