Jobs News Even Worse Than We Thought

[Fade the Butcher]

I haven't seen Thinker since he left the building a few weeks ago.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060211_jobs.htm

By Paul Craig Roberts

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities—primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is "the envy of the world." Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized "new economy" never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.

In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.

Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs. Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones. Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.

Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.

They were wrong.

At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for "free market economists" who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefiting Americans.

Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.

No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camelot writes that there were 7.9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)

The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.

On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005—$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.

Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war.

Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression?

Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?

[Fade the Butcher]

By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060215_reality.htm

Who can forget the neocons’ claim that under their leadership America creates its own reality?

Remember the neocons’ Iraq reality—a "cakewalk" war? After three years of combat, thousands of casualties, and cost estimated at over $1 trillion, real reality must still compete with the White House spin machine.

One might think that the Iraq experience would restore sober judgment to policymakers. Alas, neocon reality has spread everywhere. It has infected the media and the new Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who just gave Congress an upbeat report on the economy. The robust economy, he declared, could soon lead to inflation and higher interest rates.

Consumers deeper in debt and fresh from their first negative savings rate since the Great Depression show high consumer confidence. It is as if the entire country is on an acid trip or a cocaine trip or whatever it is that lets people create realities for themselves that bear no relation to real reality.

How can the upbeat views be reconciled with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ payroll jobs data, the extraordinary red ink, and exploding trade deficit?

Perhaps the answer is that every economic development, no matter how detrimental, is spun as if it were good news. For example, the worsening US trade deficit is spun as evidence of the fast growth of the US economy: the economy is growing so fast it can’t meet its needs and must rely on imports. Declining household income is spun as an inflation fighter that keeps mortgage interest rates low. Federal budget deficits are spun as letting taxpayers keep and spend more of their own money. Massive layoffs are spun as evidence that change is so rapid that the work force must constantly upgrade skills and re-educate itself.

The denial of economic reality has become an art form. Except for Lou Dobbs, no accurate economic reporting is available in the "mainstream media."

Occasionally, real information escapes the spin machine. The National Association of Manufacturers, one of outsourcing’s greatest boosters, has just released a report, "US Manufacturing Innovation at Risk,"[PDF] by economists Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe. The economists find that US industry’s investment in research and development is not languishing after all. It just appears to be languishing, because it is rapidly being shifted overseas: "Funds provided for foreign- performed R&D have grown by almost 73 percent between 1999 and 2003, with a 36 percent increase in the number of firms funding foreign R&D."

US industry is still investing in R&D after all; it is just not hiring Americans to do the R&D.

US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor.

US manufacturers still hire engineers, only they are foreign ones, not American ones.

In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums.

As these Americans happen to be customers for US manufacturers, US brand names will gradually lose their US market. US household median income has fallen for the past five years. Consumer demand has been kept alive by consumers’ spending their savings and home equity and going deeper into debt. It is not possible for debt to forever rise faster than income.

When manufacturing moves abroad, engineering follows. R&D follows engineering, and innovation follows R&D. The entire economy drains away. This is why the "new economy" has not materialized to take the place of the lost "old economy."

The latest technologies go into the newest plants, and those plants are abroad. Innovations take place in new plants as new processes are developed to optimize the efficiency of the new technologies. The skills required to operate new processes call forth investment in education and training. As US manufacturing and R&D move abroad, Indian and Chinese engineering enrollments rise, and US enrollments decline.

The process is a unified whole. It is not possible for a country to lose parts of the process and hold on to other parts. That is why the "new economy" was a hoax from the beginning. As Popkin and Kobe note, new technologies, new manufacturing processes, and new designs take place where things are made. The notion that the US can lose everything else but hold on to innovation is absurd.

Someone needs to tell Congress before they waste yet more borrowed money. In an adjoining column to the NAM report on innovation, the February 6 Manufacturing & Technology News reports that "the US Senate is jumping on board the competitiveness issue." The Bush regime and the doormat Congress have come together in the belief that the US can keep its edge in science and technology if the federal government spends $9 billion a year to "fund innovative, big-payoff ideas that have the potential to transform the US economy."

The utter stupidity of the "Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act" (PACE) is obvious. The tremendous labor cost advantage of doing things abroad will equally apply to any new "big-payoff ideas" as it does to the goods and services currently outsourced. Moreover, US research is open-sourced. It is available to anyone. As the Cox Commission Report made clear, there are a large number of Chinese front companies in the US for the sole purpose of collecting technology. PACE will simply be another US taxpayer subsidy to the rising Asian economies.

The assertion that we hear every day that America is falling behind because it doesn’t produce enough science, mathematics and engineering graduates is a bald-faced lie. The problem is always brought back to education failures in K-12, that is, to more education subsidies. When CEOs say they can’t find American engineers, they mean they cannot find Americans who will work for Chinese or Indian wages. That is what the so-called "shortage" is all about.

I receive a constant stream of emails from unemployed and underemployed engineers with many years of experience and advanced degrees. Many have been out of work for years. They describe the movement of their jobs offshore or their replacement by foreigners brought in on work visas. Many no longer even know American engineers who are employed in the profession. Some are now working in sawmills, others in Home Depot, and others are attempting to eke out a living as consultants. Many describe lost homes, broken marriages, even imprisonment for inability to make child support payments.

Many ask me how economists can be so blind to reality. Here is my answer: Many economists are bought and paid for by outsourcers. Most of the studies claiming to prove that Americans benefit from outsourcing are done by economic consulting firms hired by outsourcers. Or they are done by think tanks or university professors dependent on corporate donors. Or they reflect the ideology of "free market economists" who are committed to the belief that "freedom" is good and always produces good results. Since outsourcing is merely the freedom of property to act in its interest, and since this self-interest is always guided by an invisible hand to the greater welfare of everyone, outsourcing, ipso facto, is good for America. Anyone who doesn’t think so is a fascist who wants to take away the rights of property.

Seriously, this is what passes for analysis among "free market economists."

Economists’ commitment to their "reality" is destroying the ladders of upward mobility that made America the land of opportunity. It is just as destructive as the neocons’ commitment to their "reality" that is driving the US deeper into war in the Middle East.

Fact and analysis no longer play a role. The spun reality in which Americans live is insulated against intelligent perception.

American "manufacturers" are becoming merely marketers of foreign made goods. The CEOs and shareholders have too short a time horizon to understand that once foreigners control the manufacture-design- innovation process, they will bypass American brand names. US companies will simply cease to exist.

Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, says that even McDonald jobs are no longer safe. Why pay an error-prone order-taker the minimum wage when McDonald can have the order transmitted via satellite to a central location and from there to the person preparing the order. McDonald’s experiment with this system to date has cut its error rate by 50% and increased its throughput by 20 percent. Technology lets the orders be taken in India or China at costs below the minimum wage and without the liabilities of US employees.

Americans are giving up their civil liberties because they fear terrorist attacks. All of the terrorists in the world cannot do America the damage it has already suffered from offshore outsourcing.

[Thinker]

Since I have been "invited" into this thread, I might as well join in . . .

Good thing this time you've just quoted the story and not done your own formatting. ;)

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.
Geeze, we were in a recession for a couple of those years. Surprise! During recessions, jobs are lost.

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
And yet - the unemployment rate has gone down over the past 3 years or so. It is now at 4.7%, which is reasonably low. What's their explanation for this?

If these "analysts" at VDare would consider things such as . . . baby boomers starting to retire, women dropping out of the workforce to have kids, people staying in school longer . . . etc etc . . . they might be able to figure out why job growth being lower than population growth could nevertheless result in a lowering unemployment rate. And that that's not neccessarily a bad thing.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities . . . US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.
Why is it neccessary to have growth in jobs in goods-producing sectors in order to have a vibrant economy?

Since output of manufactured goods has been increasing (see other thread), that is all that matters. The purpose of a manufacturing sector of an economy is to produce goods for customers. It is NOT the purpose of a manufacturing sector to employ as many people as possible just for the sake of employing as many people as possible. Therefore, as long as the US is producing more goods than it ever has (and it is), the US economy is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce.
Except that output of semiconductors is way up:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226345

The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%.
Except that output of computers and electronic products is way up:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226344

Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees.
Except that output of electrical equipment and appliances is up again, after declining in 2000 - 2003:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226346

The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%.
Except that output cars and light trucks has largely remained constant, with bumps up and down for individual years, of course:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226349

Output elsewhere in transportation equipment is way up:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226347

Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs.
Except that output of furniture has been rising since 1990, and has remained steady over the past several years (again, with bumps up and down):
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226351

Employment in textile mills declined 43%
Except that output of textile products is up again, after having declined during the recession:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226357

I'll grant them part of this one, since output of textile materials has declined significantly over both the long and short term:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226355

Can't win 'em all, I suppose.

Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs.
Well I'll grant them this one too - output of paper products had been going down, too. That could be, in part, because we're using less paper (note: I admit that's a speculative statement), and/or it could be because we're importing more paper and paper products, probably mostly from Canada:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226359

The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%.
Except that output of plastics and rubber products has gone way up:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226365

Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
Gee!! Could that be because people are smoking less? Naaaah . . . :rolleyes:

I suppose the folks at VDare would want people to start smoking more just to keep the folks working at cigarette factories employed? :rolleyes: That would keep the folks employed in the health care business even busier than they are now as well! :rolleyes:

Sometimes a declining industry can be a good thing!

Nevertheless, as you can see from this chart, ouput of beverages and tobacco has remained fairly constant (again, with bumps up and down). I suppose people are smoking less, but drinking more Pepsi:
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202327&DID=226354

The same principles apply to the rest of the article. These folks at VDare are blinding themselves by looking just at employment statistics, when that's only part of the picture.

[Thinker]

Manufacturing is divided into 2 broad categories - durable goods and non-durable goods. Durable goods are goods designed, generally, to last 3 or more years. Non-durable goods are goods designed, generally, to last less than 3 years.

As this chart shows, durable goods production has gone up since 1990, with a pause during the recent recession:
http://www.nam.org/docs/images/policies/usip100_dur.gif

Same goes with non-durable goods, though this rise isn't as sharp a one as durable goods:
http://www.nam.org/docs/images/policies/usip500_ndur.gif

And putting them together, here's a chart on total US manufacturing output:
http://www.nam.org/docs/images/policies/usip005_mfgs.gif

So, as I said above, output of manufactured goods has been rising, even though employment in these industries has been falling.

Since the purpose of a manufacturing sector of an economy is to produce goods for customers, the US manufacturing sector has been doing what it is supposed to be doing.

[Fade the Butcher]

Since I have been "invited" into this thread, I might as well join in . . .

Welcome back. I was hoping you would bite. :)

Good thing this time you've just quoted the story and not done your own formatting. ;)

No problem.

Geeze, we were in a recession for a couple of those years. Surprise! During recessions, jobs are lost.

*scratches head*

A recession is to blame? That's interesting, Thinker. You seem to suggest below that the manafacturing sector is doing just fine; that everything is wonderful and that output has risen. But isn't that what Paul Craig Roberts pointed out? That the economy is wonderful for oligarch manafacturers but not so great for manafacturing workers? Why don't you respond to that?

And yet - the unemployment rate has gone down over the past 3 years or so. It is now at 4.7%, which is reasonably low. What's their explanation for this?

Could it be that discouraged American workers are dropping out of the labor force?

Why is it neccessary to have growth in jobs in goods-producing sectors in order to have a vibrant economy?

You seem to be a little confused here. We don't exist for the sake of the economy. The economy exists for the sake of us, that is, to satisfy our needs and to provide us with a decent standard of living. Thus, when good jobs with lots of benefits are shifted overseas and are replaced by crappy service jobs with less benefits this is a loss for the nation, not a gain. Got it?

Since output of manufactured goods has been increasing (see other thread), that is all that matters.

This is false.

The purpose of a manufacturing sector of an economy is to produce goods for customers. It is NOT the purpose of a manufacturing sector to employ as many people as possible just for the sake of employing as many people as possible.

The purpose of the manafacturing sector of an economy, like other sectors, is to satisfy the material needs and wants of the nation, not individual consumers. The manafacturing sector does not exist for its own sake or to bestow wealth upon an ultra rich elite, as you would have it. You seem to be forgetting this very crucial point. If I lose my manafacturing job and get hired on at Walmart, then my standard of living hasn't increased because GDP has risen. If the wealth that is generated from increased productivity does not filter down to me, then from my vantagepoint it might just as well have never been produced. Wealth has no value in its own sake. It only has value in so far as it allows us to achieve our ends.

Therefore, as long as the US is producing more goods than it ever has (and it is), the US economy is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

This is nonsense. Notice how Thinker is completely dodging the point made by Paul Craig Roberts and others here. He isn't disputing their findings about job losses and the changing job profile of the American worker. He is addressing a straw man of this own creation. Roberts pointed out above that manafacturing is doing just fine for manafacturers. Things couldn't be better.

I suppose the folks at VDare would want people to start smoking more just to keep the folks working at cigarette factories employed?

Obviously not. You are forgetting that the welfare of the nation, not irrational economic activity, is the unit of measure.

That would keep the folks employed in the health care business even busier than they are now as well! :rolleyes:

Hey! That would be a gain for GDP would it not? GDP is the yardstick by which we should measure our standard of living, no? Economic activity is inherently positive and non economic activity is worthless! Bring on that sprawl! Say yes to crime! We need more divorces and natural disasters to jump start the economy!

Sometimes a declining industry can be a good thing!

Sometimes. No one here is saying that economic activity is valuable for its own sake. That is irrational.

The same principles apply to the rest of the article.

This is a false analogy.

These folks at VDare are blinding themselves by looking just at employment statistics, when that's only part of the picture.

I hereby bestow upon Thinker the 'Artful Dodger' award. :p

http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/dodger.jpg

Like Nitpick, Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When faced with an attack he can't rebuff he maneuvers the discussion into an area where he feels he occupies the high ground. If, for example, in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for his sainted mother, but will launch into a long harrangue about the sanctity of motherhood. Knowing full well that to stay on topic will assure his defeat, he is utterly impervious to counterattacks like, "that has nothing to do with this discussion".

[A. Radek]

Well, to the Thinkers of the world, it's just tough if 80% of the country starves, because if the top 0.5% of the people are doing great, then so is the nation, and that means the country is doing great, and we need more illegal immigration, not less.

You and I are just too dense to grasp the connection.

[Thinker]

*scratches head*

A recession is to blame? That's interesting, Thinker. You seem to suggest below that the manafacturing sector is doing just fine; that everything is wonderful and that output has risen. But isn't that what Paul Craig Roberts pointed out? That the economy is wonderful for oligarch manafacturers but not so great for manafacturing workers? Why don't you respond to that?

During the 2001 recession (which kinda lingered for a couple years afterwards), jobs were lost and output of most American industries went down. This is typical of recessions.

Since then, output has started rising again. When I claim that the manufacturing sector is doing fine, I'm talking about a) the longer-term trend (since 1990, see charts above), and b) since the recession. Of course things went downhill during the recession.


Could it be that discouraged American workers are dropping out of the labor force?

Interestingly, the labor force participation rate started declining even during the late-90's boom when jobs were abundant and the unemployment rate got below 4%:

http://www.dlc.org/upload_graphics/BP_2003_n5_Wwatch3.gif

And also interestingly, it has only started declining recently, after having risen for years. It is now at about the same rate as it was in the early 90's . . and far above what it was in the 60's and 70's:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/blsin/inu0018us0+1960+2006+0+0+0+290+545++0

For more perspective, compare the US's 66% labor participation rate with some other developed nations:

Australia - 64%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018au0

Canada - 67%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018ca0

France - 57%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018fr0

Germany - 57%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018ge0

Italy - 49%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018it0

Japan - 60%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018ja0

Sweden - 64%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018sw0

UK - 63%
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018uk0

Even if you are right and there are increasing numbers of "discouraged" workers, workers in the US are less "discouraged" than in most other developed nations. And they are also less "discouraged" than they were in the 60's and 70's.


You seem to be a little confused here. We don't exist for the sake of the economy. The economy exists for the sake of us, that is, to satisfy our needs and to provide us with a decent standard of living. Thus, when good jobs with lots of benefits are shifted overseas and are replaced by crappy service jobs with less benefits this is a loss for the nation, not a gain. Got it?

The economy is satisfying our needs by producing more than it ever has, and at increasingly higher rates of productivity. If fewer workers can produce more, the value of the labor of those remaining workers goes up. This is why production workers in developed nations like the US and Germany and Japan earn far more than production workers in China and India: The value of the goods they produce is greater than in less advanced economies. If you want to go back to the days where the US produced every itty bitty good that it consumed - including many of the low-valued-added goods largely made in 3rd World nations these days - you will have to accept lower manufacturing wages.

In other words, either you'd have to have the US produce every little item and have large numbers of low-paying "sweatshop" type manufacturing jobs, or have a smaller number of people produce higher-valued-added goods, and have those workers earn better money.

You would simply replace the low-paying service jobs of today with low-paying manufacturing jobs. Is it a myth that all manufacturing jobs of yesteryear were good-paying jobs with great benefits. Many of them weren't.


This is false.

As proven above, the US is producing more than it ever has:
http://www.nam.org/docs/images/policies/usip005_mfgs.gif


The purpose of the manafacturing sector of an economy, like other sectors, is to satisfy the material needs and wants of the nation, not individual consumers. The manafacturing sector does not exist for its own sake or to bestow wealth upon an ultra rich elite, as you would have it. You seem to be forgetting this very crucial point. If I lose my manafacturing job and get hired on at Walmart, then my standard of living hasn't increased because GDP has risen. If the wealth that is generated from increased productivity does not filter down to me, then from my vantagepoint it might just as well have never been produced. Wealth has no value in its own sake. It only has value in so far as it allows us to achieve our ends.

You keep on spelling manufacturing wrong. ;)

As noted above, your old manufacturing job wasn't neccessarily a good-paying one. You could very well have had a manufacturing job assembling circuit boards in a warehouse near LA at $8/hr. Or maybe sewing together sweaters in NY's garment district for the same wages. All of this is why so many blue-collar areas of the US have been poor for so long.

So, you go from an $8/hour job at a circuit board plant near LA, to making $8/hour in a Wal-Mart. Your standard of living has not declined.

And the remaining manufacturing workers are making higher-value-added goods, increasing the value of their wages.


This is nonsense. Notice how Thinker is completely dodging the point made by Paul Craig Roberts and others here. He isn't disputing their findings about job losses and the changing job profile of the American worker. He is addressing a straw man of this own creation. Roberts pointed out above that manafacturing is doing just fine for manafacturers. Things couldn't be better.

You are wrong - Roberts DID NOT say that the US manufacturing sector is doing fine. Here is his quote from the 2nd article:

"US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor."

The US is not making "less", it is making MORE. Once again, the chart:
http://www.nam.org/docs/images/policies/usip005_mfgs.gif


This is a false analogy.

No, it is not a false analogy because Roberts talks mostly about employment numbers, when, in the case of manufacturing, output has been increasing. He essentially wants manufacturers to employ as many people as possible just for the sake of employing as many people as possible - and damn them if it causes them to lose money! (why do you think GM and Ford are having so many problems - for decades they've been "employing as many people as possible" and now they're paying the price)


I hereby bestow upon Thinker the 'Artful Dodger' award. :p

I hereby bestow upon Fade the 'Artful Dodger' award because he is ignoring the fact that the purpose of a manufacturing sector of an economy is to produce goods for customers. It is NOT the purpose of a manufacturing sector to employ as many people as possible just for the sake of employing as many people as possible.

[raven]

The GDP is a very flawed measure as it includes expenditure and all these other things that don't necessarily benefit people. It is merely a measure of economic activity, that is all. I have seen other alternative forms of measure but they are not commonly used at all and you'd be hardpressed to find a recent actual standard of living economical standard. Or maybe I'm wrong... if anyone can find such an alternative measure that shows figures recently I would be interested in having a look at it.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that the global economy is a farce. "The Global Village" will be the death of us all.

[Thinker]

Oh yeah, I should also clarify something . . .

The economy exists for the sake of us, that is, to satisfy our needs and to provide us with a decent standard of living. Thus, when good jobs with lots of benefits are shifted overseas and are replaced by crappy service jobs with less benefits this is a loss for the nation, not a gain. Got it?

The purpose of an economy is to serve the consumer. Period.

Therefore, when the economy can give us more and more goods and services at lower and lower prices and/or with higher and higher value added, it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

[Fade the Butcher]

During the 2001 recession (which kinda lingered for a couple years afterwards), jobs were lost and output of most American industries went down. This is typical of recessions.Of course things went downhill during the recession.

Are you suggesting here that the job layoffs in the manufacturing sector during, say, 2001-2003 can be attributed to a recession as opposed to outsourcing? If that is the case, then why are the job losses continuing to mount if we have pulled ourselves out of this recession? That seems a tad counterintuitive to me if the recession has caused the job losses.

Since then, output has started rising again.

Who disputes that manufacturing output is rising? What has been claimed is that the manufacturing sector is laying off massive amounts of American workers and that these workers are being generally finding employment in jobs that pay less, have less benefits, and offer less hours. You continue, however, to dodge the facts cited by Roberts in the articles that were posted above (probably because they are unassailable) and address points that were never disputed by him.

When I claim that the manufacturing sector is doing fine, I'm talking about a) the longer-term trend (since 1990, see charts above), and b) since the recession.

You are missing the point. The American manufacturing sector has no value in its own right. The American manufacturing sector interests us in so far as it contributes to our national standard of living, that is, in so far as it produces material wealth that enhances our quality of life. If our standard of living declines as manufacturing output increases because of massive job losses, then we are not benefiting from these changes in the manufacturing sector as a nation.

Interestingly, the labor force participation rate started declining even during the late-90's boom when jobs were abundant and the unemployment rate got below 4%

I am sure that is interesting and that you are fascinated by what happened in the 1990s and all sorts of other Western nations, but this is nonresponsive to my point which was about the unemployment rate as it exists right now.

Even if you are right and there are increasing numbers of "discouraged" workers, workers in the US are less "discouraged" than in most other developed nations. And they are also less "discouraged" than they were in the 60's and 70's.

I don't see anything here that disputes the point Roberts made above the artificially low unemployment rate. The official unemployment rate is artificially low because it isn't taking into account discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force.

The economy is satisfying our needs by producing more than it ever has, and at increasingly higher rates of productivity.

I'm not following you here, Thinker. I will cut out the bullshit and sum up your argument for the gallery. What you are saying amounts to this: the U.S. manufacturing sector is 1.) producing more material wealth than ever before and 2.) the U.S. manafacturing sector has made huge gains in productivity.

Alright. Fair point. But so what? This is utterly meaningless if the social product is not being distributed amongst the public in a way that reflects the gains made in productivity and output described above. Such things: material wealth, productivity gains, increases in output have no value in their own right. They only take on value in so far as they advance our ends, that is, to improve our standard of living and quality of life as a nation, NOT in so far as the further enrich an already wealthy elite.

If fewer workers can produce more, the value of the labor of those remaining workers goes up. This is why production workers in developed nations like the US and Germany and Japan earn far more than production workers in China and India: The value of the goods they produce is greater than in less advanced economies.

This isn't controversial.

If you want to go back to the days where the US produced every itty bitty good that it consumed - including many of the low-valued-added goods largely made in 3rd World nations these days - you will have to accept lower manufacturing wages.

This is misleading for several reasons. What wages and benefits would such workers earn working in manufacturing as opposed to the low wage service jobs they are currently employed in? How many people would be employed in manafacturing in such an autarkic economy? What sort of new opportunities would these workers have for advancement? The truth, which you want so bad to gloss over, is that the distribution of wealth in such a state would be far more equitable and that gains made in productivity and output would more easily filter down to the masses.

In other words, either you'd have to have the US produce every little item and have large numbers of low-paying "sweatshop" type manufacturing jobs, or have a smaller number of people produce higher-valued-added goods, and have those workers earn better money.

This strikes me as a false dichotomy. Explain how, say, the existence of textile workers reduces the wages of manufacturing workers employed in other subsectors.

You would simply replace the low-paying service jobs of today with low-paying manufacturing jobs.

Wait. Do I hear Thinker admitting that the high paying manafacturing jobs are being exchanged for low paying service jobs . . . right now? :p

Is it a myth that all manufacturing jobs of yesteryear were good-paying jobs with great benefits. Many of them weren't.

It is a myth that gains made in productivity and output are inherently positive. That is the lie you are trying to pass off here though. Such gains are meaningless if they accrue to overwhelmingly to a small wealthy elite of oligarchs.

As proven above, the US is producing more than it ever has

This is nonresponsive, as no one has claimed otherwise. I totally agree that the economy is doing just fine for oligarch manafacturers and the ultra rich. It is the job profile and the standard of living of the average American worker that I am concerned with.

You keep on spelling manufacturing wrong. ;)

And I will award a semantic point in your favor. Now try to scoring some substantial ones by addressing the facts raised by Paul Craig Roberts in his articles instead of your own straw man diversions. :)

As noted above, your old manufacturing job wasn't neccessarily a good-paying one. You could very well have had a manufacturing job assembling circuit boards in a warehouse near LA at $8/hr. Or maybe sewing together sweaters in NY's garment district for the same wages.

This is a straw man. No one claimed that every old manafacturing job was high paying.

All of this is why so many blue-collar areas of the US have been poor for so long.

Maybe this had something to do with radical laissez-faire capitalism and a lack of labor legislation? Hmm?? The domination of our political process by an entrenched elite of oligarchs in the North and South respectively?

So, you go from an $8/hour job at a circuit board plant near LA, to making $8/hour in a Wal-Mart. Your standard of living has not declined.

We are not discussing individuals. We are discussing the distribution of the social product generated by the manufacturing sector on a national basis. If that social product continues to expand through gains in productivity and increased output, then such gains must be distributed amongst the public in proportion for it to be of value to them.

And the remaining manufacturing workers are making higher-value-added goods, increasing the value of their wages.

Ah! I see. You are telling us that a smaller and smaller and smaller number of workers are making higher wages? If that is the case, then what is happening to the bulk of manufacturing workers who used to make such wages? It would seem reasonable to assume that they are suffering from misfortune would it not?

You are wrong - Roberts DID NOT say that the US manufacturing sector is doing fine. Here is his quote from the 2nd article

"In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums."
--Paul Craig Roberts

The US is not making "less", it is making MORE.

Roberts did not say U.S. manafacturing output was in decline at all.

No, it is not a false analogy because Roberts talks mostly about employment numbers, when, in the case of manufacturing, output has been increasing.

You intentionally used a false analogy, as their is a very important difference the tobacco industry and others. Cigarette smoking damages the health of the nation. The criterion, once again, is the national welfare.

He essentially wants manufacturers to employ as many people as possible just for the sake of employing as many people as possible - and damn them if it causes them to lose money!

No. This is false. You are intentionally throwing up a smokescreen here to confuse the gallery. What Roberts is protesting is the deteriorating job profile of the American worker, not because manufacturing is valuable for its own sake, but because he is being cheated out of the gains in productivity and output which will not accrue to him, but which will instead accumulate to a wealthy monied elite that corrupts our political process with their ill gotten wealth and finances the free trade propaganda you are peddling here.

(why do you think GM and Ford are having so many problems - for decades they've been "employing as many people as possible" and now they're paying the price)

Hmm. I'm guessing it has something to do with the hordes of foreign cars were are seeing all around America these days. What do you think?

I hereby bestow upon Fade the 'Artful Dodger' award because he is ignoring the fact that the purpose of a manufacturing sector of an economy is to produce goods for customers.

That is not the purpose of the economy, as Americans are not just consumers. They are also employees. It is through employment that the social product is distributed and if the job profile of Americans deteriorates, then they are worse off than they were before.

Did I mention that nineteenth century slave owners were the biggest supporters of free trade? Would you have use believe that the status of slaves is improved simply because they are generating wealth for their masters? Would Thinker have us believe that the wealth we do not possess, that is in someone else's dining room and wallet, is valuable to us?? :p

It is NOT the purpose of a manufacturing sector to employ as many people as possible just for the sake of employing as many people as possible.

The purpose of the manufacturing sector, Thinker, is to provide material wealth to satisfy the wants and needs of the nation. The gains in productivity and output made by the manufacturing sector are valuable only in so far as they benefit the nation. Employment in the manufacturing sector plays an indispensible role in distributing the social product produced by the manufacturing sector amongst them members of the nation. The workers of the nation are entitled to the social product of the nation because of their common labor on behalf of the nation.

[Fade the Butcher]

The purpose of an economy is to serve the consumer. Period.

The purpose of an economy is to serve the nation. Period. I can't emphasize that point enough. :p

Therefore, when the economy can give us more and more goods and services at lower and lower prices and/or with higher and higher value added, it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

"Let London manufacture those fine fabrics of hers to her heart's content; let Holland her chambrays; Florence her cloth; the Indies their beaver and vicuna; Milan her brocade, Italy and Flanders their linens...so long as our capital can enjoy them; the only thing it proves is that all nations train their journeymen for Madrid, and that Madrid is the queen of Parliaments, for all the world serves her and she serves nobody."
--Alfonso Nunez de Castro, 1675

[Dan Dare]

Allow me to be among the first to welcome Thinker back into our circle.

You have been sorely missed.

Good on yer mate, keep those spreadsheets coming!

[Thinker]

Are you suggesting here that the job layoffs in the manufacturing sector during, say, 2001-2003 can be attributed to a recession as opposed to outsourcing? If that is the case, then why are the job losses continuing to mount if we have pulled ourselves out of this recession? That seems a tad counterintuitive to me if the recession has caused the job losses.

The US manufacturing sector has been slowly and steadily losing jobs for decades, whether in a recession or not. This is mostly (though not entirely) because of increased productivity - that is, we are producing more (and higher-valued) goods using fewer people. It is the same process that has been happening in agriculture for the past 100+ years. About a hundred years ago, something like a quarter or half the US population was engaged in farming. Now only about 3% of the population does. Yet, agricultural output has increased dramatically during that same time.

During recessions, you will get a larger drop in manufacturing job losses than normal. During an extremely healthy recovery, you *might* get a small gain (for example, I think during the Clinton years, manufacturing jobs increased very slightly). But all of that is just "noise" in the larger trend.

The manufacturing jobs that are lost to outsourcing cannot be avoided - and as noted above, they tend to be the kind of jobs you might not want too much of your nation anyway (lower-paying ones). If these sorts of things can be produced cheaply overseas, society benefits because the lower price will enable more people to purchase these things. I have more to say on this below.


Who disputes that manufacturing output is rising?

I'm glad you finally agree.


What has been claimed is that the manufacturing sector is laying off massive amounts of American workers and that these workers are being generally finding employment in jobs that pay less, have less benefits, and offer less hours. You continue, however, to dodge the facts cited by Roberts in the articles that were posted above (probably because they are unassailable) and address points that were never disputed by him.

I agree 100% that the manufacturing sector has been laying off large amounts of workers. As noted above, this has been going on for decades.

The point we dispute is whether or not this is neccesarily a bad thing for the nation. I claim it is not. The reason it is not a bad thing is the same reason that the loss of agricultural "jobs" was not a bad thing over the past 100+ years.

As fewer and fewer people over the past 100+ years were engaged in farming, more and more of these people left the farms to work in factory jobs in the cities. While many of these jobs did not pay particularly well, they were nonetheless an improvement over farming. The remaining farms consolidated and became more and more productive over time. This benefitted the remaining farmers, who essentially became big businesses.

So, the people who left farming to work in the factories benefitted because factory work was a little bit better than farming. And the remaining farmers left behind benefitted because their increasingly large farms enabled them to become more productive and, therefore, wealthier.

Now, the same process is happenning with manufacturing. Most people would rather be an accountant or lawyer or nurse or a real estate agent or an architect than a factory worker. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of people would rather work in a Wal-Mart than work in most factories (I sure would). So, by increasingly leaving factory jobs and working in the service sector instead, people are bettering their lives. The remaining factory workers will benefit because they will become more productive over time, producing more with the same labor input, which in turn will raise the value of each unit of labor.


You are missing the point. The American manufacturing sector has no value in its own right. The American manufacturing sector interests us in so far as it contributes to our national standard of living, that is, in so far as it produces material wealth that enhances our quality of life. If our standard of living declines as manufacturing output increases because of massive job losses, then we are not benefiting from these changes in the manufacturing sector as a nation.

Our quality of life will be enhanced as more and more people do what they want to do - become accountants or lawyers or nurses or real estate agents or baristas - rather than be stuck with tedious, physical and menial factory work.

As noted several times now, since many manufacturing jobs are not neccessarily well-paying ones, society will not lose wealth as people leave these jobs. Even if they take a job at Wal-Mart, in many cases that is the equivalent of the factory job they left. And the ones who leave factory jobs and take some accounting classes to become an accountant (or things of that nature), they will see a net gain in their standard of living.


I am sure that is interesting and that you are fascinated by what happened in the 1990s and all sorts of other Western nations, but this is nonresponsive to my point which was about the unemployment rate as it exists right now.

I was just providing some perspective on labor participation rates. Compared to most other developed nations, Americans are highly involved in the workforce and could say to be less "discouraged" than people in other nations. Also, we are less "discouraged" than we have been in the past.

In other words, be glad we're not as the point Italy is at now. And since the labor participation rate is much higher now than it was in the 60's and 70's (and probably the 50's as well), Americans are less "discouraged" than they have been in the past.


I don't see anything here that disputes the point Roberts made above the artificially low unemployment rate. The official unemployment rate is artificially low because it isn't taking into account discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force.

See above response. One might say the unemployment rate is less "artificially low" than that of Italy or Germany, and is also less "artifically low" than it was in the 60's and 70's.


I'm not following you here, Thinker. I will cut out the bullshit and sum up your argument for the gallery. What you are saying amounts to this: the U.S. manufacturing sector is 1.) producing more material wealth than ever before and 2.) the U.S. manafacturing sector has made huge gains in productivity.

Alright. Fair point. But so what? This is utterly meaningless if the social product is not being distributed amongst the public in a way that reflects the gains made in productivity and output described above. Such things: material wealth, productivity gains, increases in output have no value in their own right. They only take on value in so far as they advance our ends, that is, to improve our standard of living and quality of life as a nation, NOT in so far as the further enrich an already wealthy elite.

But it is being distributed amongst the public . . .

As usual, you are focusing solely on the employment picture. In essence, you're only looking at this (ironically) from the viewpoint of the producer. The other half of the equation is the consumer.

By being able to produce more with less labor input, goods have become less expensive (adjusted for inflation), and we're also getting more features. Here's a classic example - automobiles:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FJN/is_12_34/ai_65073298
^
" Since 1997 new-vehicle prices have been coming down, notes auto analyst Lincoln Merrihew.

"We've had deflation in the auto industry," he tells an Auto Remarketing Forum Series in San Francisco. "The auto industry is going the way of the computer industry. Each next model has more features for less money."

One other anecdote on cars: In January 1994 I bought a basic Saturn 4-door sedan for $11,125.

Y'know how much the 2006 equivalent of that car costs? Go here:
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/ionsedan/pricing.jsp
^
$12,490.

If you take into account inflation over those 12 years, the price of that car has actually fallen. And I'm sure the quality is better, and it probably has more standard features.

In addition, all that outsourcing of consumer electronics, sneakers and kids toys to factories in China and Mexico means that the products are less expensive and, hence, more people can afford them. The more things that become more affordable to more people means that the standard of living has risen. If 60% of the population can afford a color TV as opposed to only 40%, then the standard of living has risen. It doesn't matter if it is 60% vs 40% due to rising wages or due to falling prices: the effect is the same.

All of this is to the benefit of the consumer. If you can get more for less, the consumer benefits . . . as does the society these consumers constitute.


This is misleading for several reasons. What wages and benefits would such workers earn working in manufacturing as opposed to the low wage service jobs they are currently employed in? How many people would be employed in manafacturing in such an autarkic economy? What sort of new opportunities would these workers have for advancement? The truth, which you want so bad to gloss over, is that the distribution of wealth in such a state would be far more equitable and that gains made in productivity and output would more easily filter down to the masses.

. . .

This strikes me as a false dichotomy. Explain how, say, the existence of textile workers reduces the wages of manufacturing workers employed in other subsectors.

Let me re-state in more detail . . .

Certain kinds of manufacturing industries are difficult to automate (at least with current technology) and are therefore very labor intensive. In most cases, these are also industries which are fantastically competitive with low profit margins -- apparel, many kinds of electronics, kids toys -- things of that nature. The combination of those two factors would neccessitate low wages for production workers even if they were assembled in the US with protected markets. In other words, with a half dozen or more consumer electronics makers (for example) competing against each other for US consumer's wallets, that competition alone will cut profit margins. The fact that production of these goods is very labor-intensive compounds the problem: You cannot expect high wages in an industry with low profit margins AND a need for huge quantities of workers.

Eventually, under the conditions you envision, here's what would happen . . .

1) There would be a vast consolidation of companies in the industry, to the point where only 2 or 3 makers would survive. With less competition, prices would rise - especially since these companies would be expected to continue paying their employees the generous wages you expect of them.
2) As the prices rose, sales would decline.
3) As sales decline, layoffs would ensue. Potentially, even one of more of the 2 or 3 remaining companies in the industry would fail or be absorbed by one of the others.

By expecting these companies to pay their employees high wages and forcing them to produce in the US under protected conditions, all you do is raise the price of the goods they produce. Even if wages are 40% higher in your scenario than they would be under under my scenario, under your scenario prices would also be 40% higher, and so you've gained absolutely nothing.


Wait. Do I hear Thinker admitting that the high paying manafacturing jobs are being exchanged for low paying service jobs . . . right now? :p

No - read what I wrote: I said that low-paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced with low-paying service jobs. In this tradeoff, there is no gain or loss. In fact, one might argue it is a slight gain since most people would rather make $8/hour working in a Wal-Mart than make $8/hour working on a circuit board assembly line.

The low-paying manufacturing jobs are the ones that are tending to go overseas, or are being lost to productivity gains.

The higher-paying manufacturing jobs are the ones that are tending to stay here. To understand this, I insist you read the following article, paying particular attention to the part in red near the bottom:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1


It is a myth that gains made in productivity and output are inherently positive. That is the lie you are trying to pass off here though. Such gains are meaningless if they accrue to overwhelmingly to a small wealthy elite of oligarchs.

This is so utterly untrue it isn't funny. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to counter your claim. Start by reading the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226476987/sr=8-1/qid=1140247117/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6085713-4535169?%5Fencoding=UTF8


This is a straw man. No one claimed that every old manafacturing job was high paying.

Good, I'm glad you understand this much. Now, once again, read the following article to understand how and why it is the lower-paying, lower-skilled manufacturing jobs which are the ones that have tended to be lost, while the higher-paying, higher-valued-added ones tend to be the ones which are staying:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1

A few other articles in that thread, incidentally, point to the same conclusion.


Maybe this had something to do with radical laissez-faire capitalism and a lack of labor legislation? Hmm?? The domination of our political process by an entrenched elite of oligarchs in the North and South respectively?

Or, instead, it could be because these industries, as noted in a reply above, are inherently low-margin, labor-intensive businesses which are dependant upon inexpensive labor just to survive. The fact that we had protected markets for so long didn't help either, because it forced manufacturers to employ workers in the US when that otherwise might not have been an optimal arrangement.

When you force an industry to produce in the US when that industry needs low-paid labor just to survive, you will get a lot of low-paid labor in the US.


We are not discussing individuals. We are discussing the distribution of the social product generated by the manufacturing sector on a national basis. If that social product continues to expand through gains in productivity and increased output, then such gains must be distributed amongst the public in proportion for it to be of value to them.

I was citing (again) an example of low-paid manufacturing wages being replaced by low-paid service wages.

And once again, the following two things are must-reads:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226476987/sr=8-1/qid=1140247117/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6085713-4535169?%5Fencoding=UTF8


Ah! I see. You are telling us that a smaller and smaller and smaller number of workers are making higher wages? If that is the case, then what is happening to the bulk of manufacturing workers who used to make such wages? It would seem reasonable to assume that they are suffering from misfortune would it not?

Once again, it is the lower-paid manufacturing jobs which have tended to disappear, not the higher-paid ones. Yet again . . .
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1

The lower-paid ones who are tending to lose their jobs are migrating to low-paying jobs at Wal-Mart. A wash, basically.


"In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums."
--Paul Craig Roberts

Yes, I saw that. He was obviously referring to the folks in the corporate headquarters, not the workers, and not (American-based) output. I was referring to output.


Roberts did not say U.S. manafacturing output was in decline at all.

There seems to be something wrong with your reading comprehension. From the 2nd article:

"US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor"


You intentionally used a false analogy, as their is a very important difference the tobacco industry and others. Cigarette smoking damages the health of the nation. The criterion, once again, is the national welfare.

Then why did Roberts complain about declining employment in the tobacco industry? If anything, he should be jumping up and down in joy about it.


No. This is false. You are intentionally throwing up a smokescreen here to confuse the gallery. What Roberts is protesting is the deteriorating job profile of the American worker, not because manufacturing is valuable for its own sake, but because he is being cheated out of the gains in productivity and output which will not accrue to him, but which will instead accumulate to a wealthy monied elite that corrupts our political process with their ill gotten wealth and finances the free trade propaganda you are peddling here.

He is not being cheated out of anything. The increased productivity means that goods are less expensive over time, even adjusted for inflation (see example above vis-a-vis cars). The migration of some other manufacturing jobs (mostly lower-paying ones) overseas means that labor-intensive goods in highly competitive industries are also more affordable. We can buy 36" TV's for $200 instead of $500, and it has more features as well.

Raising wages is not the only way to benefit the consumers of a nation. Falling prices will accomplish the same thing. Ideally you would have both.


Hmm. I'm guessing it has something to do with the hordes of foreign cars were are seeing all around America these days. What do you think?

Most of those "foreign" cars these days are made in the US. GM and Ford are struggling, but Toyoya - with 7 or 8 assembly plants in the US and Canada and 2 more on the way - is doing just fine.

GM and Ford wouldn't be in nearly as bad shape as they are now if they weren't paying union workers to sit around and do nothing.


That is not the purpose of the economy, as Americans are not just consumers. They are also employees. It is through employment that the social product is distributed and if the job profile of Americans deteriorates, then they are worse off than they were before.

Here is an excerpt from the book I linked above. I couldn't say it better myself. From page 299:

"The purpose of economics is consumption. We realize the benefits of an economy when we use goods and recieve services. We want to use goods to do things we could not do without them. We want services to have other people do things for us we cannot do or would rather not do. These benefits are the value created by an economy. We can choose to consume everything right now or save to consume later. However, consumption is what we want from an economy. Of course, production and work are neccessary for consumption. We cannot consume what we have not produced. Thus, production and work are a means to consumption. They are not a final objective themselves.

Many societies get this wrong. They see production as the creation of wealth. And they are right as far as that goes. However, they fail to make the link between production and consumption. The goods produced will only have value because consumers want them. If consumers want something different from the goods that are being produced, then the economy is performing below potential."


Did I mention that nineteenth century slave owners were the biggest supporters of free trade? Would you have use believe that the status of slaves is improved simply because they are generating wealth for their masters? Would Thinker have us believe that the wealth we do not possess, that is in someone else's dining room and wallet, is valuable to us?? :p

Slaves, since they are not paid, make lousy consumers. Therefore slavery is a sub-optimal arrangement, even just considering it just from an economic p.o.v.


The purpose of the manufacturing sector, Thinker, is to provide material wealth to satisfy the wants and needs of the nation. The gains in productivity and output made by the manufacturing sector are valuable only in so far as they benefit the nation. Employment in the manufacturing sector plays an indispensible role in distributing the social product produced by the manufacturing sector amongst them members of the nation. The workers of the nation are entitled to the social product of the nation because of their common labor on behalf of the nation.
I'll just repeat my book excerpt from above:

"The purpose of economics is consumption. We realize the benefits of an economy when we use goods and recieve services. We want to use goods to do things we could not do without them. We want services to have other people do things for us we cannot do or would rather not do. These benefits are the value created by an economy. We can choose to consume everything right now or save to consume later. However, consumption is what we want from an economy. Of course, production and work are neccessary for consumption. We cannot consume what we have not produced. Thus, production and work are a means to consumption. They are not a final objective themselves.

Many societies get this wrong. They see production as the creation of wealth. And they are right as far as that goes. However, they fail to make the link between production and consumption. The goods produced will only have value because consumers want them. If consumers want something different from the goods that are being produced, then the economy is performing below potential."

[Thinker]

The purpose of an economy is to serve the nation. Period. I can't emphasize that point enough. :p

Yes, and what is that nation comprised of?

Consumers. And producers.

An abstract idea of a nation is not the entity which consumes and produces, it is the consumers and producers therein which consume and produce.

You cannot have an economy without consumers. And you cannot have an economy without producers.

However, it is possible (in theory, at least) to have an economy without a nation. Therefore, an economy is independent of a nation, rather than being dependant on it or existing to serve it.

[il ragno]

What a silly argument. Everybody knows that an IT manager is going to be much happier tending bar at TGIF, where tipping is unheard of, three nights a week. And who ever really needed health insurance anyway? Fresh air and sunshine - that's the ticket!

[Sulla the Dictator]

What a silly argument. Everybody knows that an IT manager is going to be much happier tending bar at TGIF, where tipping is unheard of, three nights a week. And who ever really needed health insurance anyway? Fresh air and sunshine - that's the ticket!

The rest of this country is a gaggle of cheapskates. In Vegas we tip everywhere. We even tip at Subway. :p

[A. Radek]

He doesn't mean tip over, he means leaving a gratuity.:p

[A. Radek]

Slaves, since they are not paid, make lousy consumers. Therefore slavery is a sub-optimal arrangement, even just considering it just from an economic p.o.v.


A truly hilarious assertion. Slaves still consume, so they are consumers.

And people who work part time. or even full time, at low end service jobs that require government supplements for food and health care are great consumers, according to your wondrously magical theory?

WalMart employees alone are getting some $24 million a year in state and Federal welfare subsidies just in Washington state alone, just to subsist. When you consider how the qualifications for these programs haven't been raised to reflect inflation for 20 years, and neither has minimum wage, the numbers get even more dire.

[Fade the Butcher]

The US manufacturing sector has been slowly and steadily losing jobs for decades, whether in a recession or not.

I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging that. Yes. I agree. The U.S. manufacturing sector has been laying off workers for decades. This was the whole point of the articles posted above (which, I will remind the gallery, you gloss over and ignore). Why did you introduce the straw topic of the recession into the discussion? To change the subject, of course, to mislead and be disingenious.

This is mostly (though not entirely) because of increased productivity - that is, we are producing more (and higher-valued) goods using fewer people.

I would be the last to deny that increases in productivity (mostly of a technological nature) has played a role in such layoffs. But it is quite another thing to say that productivity has played the predominant role. See Japan. It is far more accurate to say outsourcing and offshore production is to blame which is directly attributable to our trade policies.

It is the same process that has been happening in agriculture for the past 100+ years. About a hundred years ago, something like a quarter or half the US population was engaged in farming. Now only about 3% of the population does. Yet, agricultural output has increased dramatically during that same time.

Thinker throws out another false analogy here. This isn't the first one. I doubt it will be the last. Get ready for a few dozen more cups of such kool aid. A quick stroll through any Walmart SuperCenter is enough to refute this one. Take a close look at the manufactured items for sale. Made in China. Made in Japan. Made in Taiwan. Made in Korea. Notice a familar pattern here? Now take a stroll to the other side of the store. Where does the produce, meat, agricultural products, and other groceries for sale come from? Idaho potatoes. Florida oranges. All sorts of corn, grain, sugar, vegetable products. See what I am getting at? The food we consume is still overwhelmingly produced in the United States whereas the manufactured goods we purchase are increasingly being produced abroad. Why is this? Because outsourcing, offshoring production, and free trade, not productivity gains, is the leading cause of such layoffs. This is a policy driven phenomena, not any inexorable economic process at work.

During recessions, you will get a larger drop in manufacturing job losses than normal.

Are we in a recession, Thinker?

During an extremely healthy recovery, you *might* get a small gain (for example, I think during the Clinton years, manufacturing jobs increased very slightly). But all of that is just "noise" in the larger trend.

Listen. What's that noise? It's a giant sucking sound.

The manufacturing jobs that are lost to outsourcing cannot be avoided - and as noted above, they tend to be the kind of jobs you might not want too much of your nation anyway (lower-paying ones).

Interesting. It is inevitable that our televisions, DVD players, automobiles, computers, clothes and so on are coming to be produced abroad and sold back to us. This is an inexorable historical process at work, not a policy driven process. We have absolutely no choice but to buy such goods from foreigners. That is a pretty bold assertion on your part.

Ford doesn't build factories in North Mexico to take advantage of the cheap labor and lax environmental standards that prevail there. Walmart doesn't peddle kitsch manufactured in China because of the favorable business climate for capital in China. Similarly, textile goods from Guatemala and the Dominican Republic have nothing to do with employing dirt poor foreigners and paying them wages well below those that prevail in the United States.

If these sorts of things can be produced cheaply overseas, society benefits because the lower price will enable more people to purchase these things. I have more to say on this below.

Ah! Interesting conclusion. Why then all the cant about productivity if cheap foreign labour is the cause of such job losses, Thinker? Furthermore, before considering how any given society benefits from massive offshoring of production, I think we should first ask ourselves why some countries have chosen not to take this route. Are these foreigners just stupid because they can't see the obvious benefits of a Walmart service based economy?

I'm glad you finally agree.

I shall remind the gallery that this was never in dispute. This was yet another straw issue introduced by Thinker.

[Fade the Butcher]

I agree 100% that the manufacturing sector has been laying off large amounts of workers. As noted above, this has been going on for decades.

Yes. Now tell us what jobs are being generated to replace these manufacturing jobs and what sort of benefits do they offer. Do these jobs offer better wages, better hours, better benefits, and better social mobility?

The point we dispute is whether or not this is neccesarily a bad thing for the nation. I claim it is not.

And I claim you are fundamentally mistaken.

The reason it is not a bad thing is the same reason that the loss of agricultural "jobs" was not a bad thing over the past 100+ years.

I addressed this false analogy above. The job losses in agriculture over the past hundred years can be attributed to better technology. We are still growing most of food in the United States though. This is not the case in manufacturing. The huge job losses in that sector are largely attributable to free trade, outsourcing, and offshore production. This is why manufactured items from textiles to consumer electronics are so often produced abroad. Hence, our exploding trade deficit.

As fewer and fewer people over the past 100+ years were engaged in farming, more and more of these people left the farms to work in factory jobs in the cities. While many of these jobs did not pay particularly well, they were nonetheless an improvement over farming. The remaining farms consolidated and became more and more productive over time. This benefitted the remaining farmers, who essentially became big businesses. So, the people who left farming to work in the factories benefitted because factory work was a little bit better than farming. And the remaining farmers left behind benefitted because their increasingly large farms enabled them to become more productive and, therefore, wealthier.

This is true.

Now, the same process is happenning with manufacturing.

But this is false. The same process is not happening at all. We didn't cease to grow our own food in the United States as Americans began to leave the farm behind to become manufacturing workers in urban centers. We didn't say to Mexico, Brazil, and India: you guys handle that from now on because you can produce agricultural products cheaper than we can. In fact, American agriculture is heavily subsidized and protected by the federal government through all sorts of programs, as you well know.

Most people would rather be an accountant or lawyer or nurse or a real estate agent or an architect than a factory worker. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of people would rather work in a Wal-Mart than work in most factories (I sure would).

You are right. These full time manufacturing workers making higher wages that are being laid off would much rather work part time at McDonald's or Walmart in order to make lower wages. Just ask them. That is why they are positively thrilled about losing their jobs! That is why they are absolutely overjoyed about their economic fortunes, as we can see in opinion poll after opinion poll!

So, by increasingly leaving factory jobs and working in the service sector instead, people are bettering their lives.

Is that a fact? Why don't we just ask these laid workers about their economic circumstances? After all, these people are not being laid off by their employers who are eager to take advantage of cheap peon third world labor. These workers are voluntarily and enthusiastically leaving these manufacturing jobs behind to get hired on in the service sector. :p

The remaining factory workers will benefit because they will become more productive over time, producing more with the same labor input, which in turn will raise the value of each unit of labor.

You mean the remaining factory workers who will be laid off in their own right a few months or years down the road?

Our quality of life will be enhanced as more and more people do what they want to do - become accountants or lawyers or nurses or real estate agents or baristas - rather than be stuck with tedious, physical and menial factory work.

You know, I have heard stories about people who live in a bubble, but until now I never had a face to stick to such stories. Are you honestly that out of touch with reality that you believe your fellow citizens are happy about losing their jobs because they are finding existential meaning flipping burgers, washing dishes, and waiting tables?

As noted several times now, since many manufacturing jobs are not neccessarily well-paying ones, society will not lose wealth as people leave these jobs. Even if they take a job at Wal-Mart, in many cases that is the equivalent of the factory job they left.

Answer my question. Are these workers who are being laid off finding jobs that offer better wages, better hours, better benefits, and better social mobility?

And the ones who leave factory jobs and take some accounting classes to become an accountant (or things of that nature), they will see a net gain in their standard of living.


I think you just drifted past Mars, Thinker. Your course will soon take you beyond the asteroid belt and soon to the outer reaches of the solar system. Do you know how many years it takes to become an accountant?

I was just providing some perspective on labor participation rates. Compared to most other developed nations, Americans are highly involved in the workforce and could say to be less "discouraged" than people in other nations. Also, we are less "discouraged" than we have been in the past.

This is a red herring. The point made by Paul Craig Roberts is that the official unemployment rate is artifically low because discouraged workers have dropped out of the labor force. How do you respond? You ignore the point made by Roberts (which is unassailable, as you well know) and address something totally irrelevant.

In other words, be glad we're not as the point Italy is at now. And since the labor participation rate is much higher now than it was in the 60's and 70's (and probably the 50's as well), Americans are less "discouraged" than they have been in the past.

Talk about Italy. Australia. Germany. France. Let's discuss anything but the actual points made by Paul Craig Roberts because they are true. I haven't seen you claim a single point made by Roberts in his article is false.

See above response. One might say the unemployment rate is less "artificially low" than that of Italy or Germany, and is also less "artifically low" than it was in the 60's and 70's.

This is once again nonresponsive.

But it is being distributed amongst the public . . .

This is nonsense. Let's compare labor productivity growth to growth in real wages.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/20051204_Labor_Pdty_Growth.gif

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0511-08.htm

Real Wages Fall at Fastest Rate in 14 Years

"Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times.

Inflation rose 3.1 per cent in the year to March but salaries climbed just 2.4 per cent, according to the Employment Cost Index. In the final three months of 2004, real wages fell by 0.9 per cent.

The last time salaries fell this steeply was at the start of 1991, when real wages declined by 1.1 per cent.

Stingy pay rises mean many Americans will have to work longer hours to keep up with the cost of living, and they could ultimately undermine consumer spending and economic growth."

As usual, you are focusing solely on the employment picture.

That would make sense. The national social product, after all, is distributed through employment.

In essence, you're only looking at this (ironically) from the viewpoint of the producer. The other half of the equation is the consumer.

This is a false distinction. Americans are both workers and consumers in addition to being many other things such as a nation.

By being able to produce more with less labor input, goods have become less expensive (adjusted for inflation), and we're also getting more features. Here's a classic example - automobiles

This is an old free traitor canard. The fact of the matter is that these so called cheap manufacturing goods are increasingly being imported from abroad. We are consuming far more than we are producing. That is why we have such a huge trade deficit. The trade deficit in turn puts downward pressure on the dollar (eroding the value of our currency).

other anecdote on cars: In January 1994 I bought a basic Saturn 4-door sedan for $11,125.

I won't discuss personal anecdotes, as they are irrelevant to the general economic health of the nation.

If you take into account inflation over those 12 years, the price of that car has actually fallen. And I'm sure the quality is better, and it probably has more standard features.

I'm curious. How much do the Japanese pay for automobiles? I'm assuming here that Japanese automobiles are of significantly less quality and cost the Japanese consumer much more than the American consumer (tongue-in-cheek).

In addition, all that outsourcing of consumer electronics, sneakers and kids toys to factories in China and Mexico means that the products are less expensive and, hence, more people can afford them. If 60% of the population can afford a color TV as opposed to only 40%, then the standard of living has risen. It doesn't matter if it is 60% vs 40% due to rising wages or due to falling prices: the effect is the same.

The Japanese and South Koreans, actually, on average own far more consumer electronics than Americans do; which is precisely why all sorts of advanced electronic gadgets make their debut in East Asia long before they arrive in North America and Europe. I'm assuming this is because they engage in such extensive outsourcing of their consumer electronics industry like Americans.

All of this is to the benefit of the consumer.

I'm not seeing any essential conflict between the producer and consumer.

If you can get more for less, the consumer benefits . . . as does the society these consumers constitute.

This is stupidity. The Japanese and South Koreans know this very well too. The reason these two countries are so wealthy today is because they forsake such a naive economic policy in favor of development. Japan would be a poor agricultural country today specializing in fishing if the Japanese had swallowed your laissez-faire kool aid.

[Fade the Butcher]

Certain kinds of manufacturing industries are difficult to automate (at least with current technology) and are therefore very labor intensive. In most cases, these are also industries which are fantastically competitive with low profit margins -- apparel, many kinds of electronics, kids toys -- things of that nature.

Let's take electronics for example. We once had a thriving electronics industry in the United States, but in recent decades much of this production has been shipped overseas or taken over by foreign competitors. We are now dependent upon East Asia for all sorts of electronic devices, as we saw in the first Gulf War, when the Pentagon ran short of certain critical electronic components in the Stealth fighters and had to back order them from China in the midst of a war.

The combination of those two factors would neccessitate low wages for production workers even if they were assembled in the US with protected markets.

Wages aren't set in the United States or any other Western country to my knowledge purely by market forces.

In other words, with a half dozen or more consumer electronics makers (for example) competing against each other for US consumer's wallets, that competition alone will cut profit margins. The fact that production of these goods is very labor-intensive compounds the problem: You cannot expect high wages in an industry with low profit margins AND a need for huge quantities of workers.

Is that so?

http://www.wcit.org/topics/imports/outsourcing_NYT_2--11-04.htm

"Samsung, the world's largest producer of bulk memory chips, has also been a steady employer. Workers make $50,000 a year, on average, on par with wages at competitors. While Motorola, Advanced Micro Devices and others have cut thousands of jobs since 1998, Samsung has dismissed only a few dozen workers and continues to hire people who lost their jobs at rival companies."

Eventually, under the conditions you envision, here's what would happen . . .

I'm listening.

1) There would be a vast consolidation of companies in the industry, to the point where only 2 or 3 makers would survive. With less competition, prices would rise - especially since these companies would be expected to continue paying their employees the generous wages you expect of them.
2) As the prices rose, sales would decline.
3) As sales decline, layoffs would ensue. Potentially, even one of more of the 2 or 3 remaining companies in the industry would fail or be absorbed by one of the others.

Yes. I see. Protectionism doesn't work. It leads to higher prices for consumers, less competition, declining sales, and massive layoffs of workers. The American consumer electronics industry is in favor better shape than the South Korean or Japanese consumer electronics industry. Japanese and South Koreans pay higher prices for consumer electronic devices, own less such devices, are paying for consumer electronics devices of inferior quality, and better yet companies like Samsung are not expanding their presence here in the United States.

By expecting these companies to pay their employees high wages and forcing them to produce in the US under protected conditions, all you do is raise the price of the goods they produce.

Did you hear this? Such electronic devices are unaffordable for Japanese and South Korean producers.

Even if wages are 40% higher in your scenario than they would be under under my scenario, under your scenario prices would also be 40% higher, and so you've gained absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that in you free traitor America that real wages have increased by 40% in the last several years?

No - read what I wrote: I said that low-paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced with low-paying service jobs. In this tradeoff, there is no gain or loss. In fact, one might argue it is a slight gain since most people would rather make $8/hour working in a Wal-Mart than make $8/hour working on a circuit board assembly line.

"I have little doubt that the jobs being lost at Ford are good ones with full benefits. Or at least mostly so."
--Thinker

The low-paying manufacturing jobs are the ones that are tending to go overseas, or are being lost to productivity gains.

Like the Ford plants in Mexico?

The higher-paying manufacturing jobs are the ones that are tending to stay here. To understand this, I insist you read the following article, paying particular attention to the part in red near the bottom

I don't read swill from the Wall Street Journal and the "there shall be open borders crowd."

This is so utterly untrue it isn't funny. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to counter your claim. Start by reading the following book:

I will address the arguments you make in this thread. If you would like to cite material from this source, then I will be happy to address such claims.

Good, I'm glad you understand this much.

That was never in dispute.

Now, once again, read the following article to understand how and why it is the lower-paying, lower-skilled manufacturing jobs which are the ones that have tended to be lost, while the higher-paying, higher-valued-added ones tend to be the ones which are staying

See above.

Or, instead, it could be because these industries, as noted in a reply above, are inherently low-margin, labor-intensive businesses which are dependant upon inexpensive labor just to survive.

You were referring to blue collar areas of the country like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, right?

The fact that we had protected markets for so long didn't help either, because it forced manufacturers to employ workers in the US when that otherwise might not have been an optimal arrangement.

Gloss over the fact that the United States became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world under during the protectionist era and extended its hegemony over the entire hemisphere before going on to conquer much of the world in the Second World War. In contrast, the economic power of the United States relative to the other industrialized powers has been in relative decline for decades now.

When you force an industry to produce in the US when that industry needs low-paid labor just to survive, you will get a lot of low-paid labor in the US.

The Japanese and the South Koreans are so poor! They are so unable to afford electronic devices. No, Thinker. They are not the cutting edge of of development in this sector.

I was citing (again) an example of low-paid manufacturing wages being replaced by low-paid service wages.

"I have little doubt that the jobs being lost at Ford are good ones with full benefits. Or at least mostly so."
--Thinker

The lower-paid ones who are tending to lose their jobs are migrating to low-paying jobs at Wal-Mart. A wash, basically.

LOL

You're right. That is precisely what all these laid off manufacturing workers are saying. Hell. I can earn just as much working at Walmart.

Yes, I saw that. He was obviously referring to the folks in the corporate headquarters, not the workers, and not (American-based) output. I was referring to output.

You claimed that Roberts suggested that output was in decline. Please point out for the gallery where he said that or retract your assertion.

There seems to be something wrong with your reading comprehension. From the 2nd article

There is nothing in this statement that suggests output is in decline. Roberts is merely alluding to the fact that production is being offshored and outsourced.

Then why did Roberts complain about declining employment in the tobacco industry? If anything, he should be jumping up and down in joy about it.

Refresh my memory. Where did Roberts mention the tobacco industry?

He is not being cheated out of anything.

See the stagnation of real wages relative to labor productivity gains and soaring income inequality.

The increased productivity means that goods are less expensive over time, even adjusted for inflation (see example above vis-a-vis cars).

The fact of the matter is that the wealth generated by the increased gains in productivity is accruing not to the working class, whose real wages are stagnating, but to the owners of capital.

The migration of some other manufacturing jobs (mostly lower-paying ones) overseas means that labor-intensive goods in highly competitive industries are also more affordable. We can buy 36" TV's for $200 instead of $500, and it has more features as well.

I'm shocked. The Japanese and South Koreans are paying outrageous prices for consumer electronics!

[Fade the Butcher]

Raising wages is not the only way to benefit the consumers of a nation. Falling prices will accomplish the same thing. Ideally you would have both.

In the United States, we have stagnating growth in real wage growth and a huge decline in the value of the dollar over the past decade.

Most of those "foreign" cars these days are made in the US. GM and Ford are struggling, but Toyoya - with 7 or 8 assembly plants in the US and Canada and 2 more on the way - is doing just fine.

The only reason Toyota builds assembly plants in the United States is because there are caps on the number of cars it can export here directly from Japan. Japanese automobile manufacturers also open up plants in key U.S. states and Congressional districts as kickbacks to corrupt Congressmen who support their agenda.

GM and Ford wouldn't be in nearly as bad shape as they are now if they weren't paying union workers to sit around and do nothing.

Ah yes. Those unions are the problem! Let's go back to the days of poor houses, trusts, company towns, and sweatshops.

Here is an excerpt from the book I linked above. I couldn't say it better myself. From page 299

I am entirely familar with your theory, Thinker. You don't have to reiterate it to me again. I have already explained why it is false.

Slaves, since they are not paid, make lousy consumers.

Who is doing the consuming? You make a lot of noise about consumers, but you sidestep this question.

Therefore slavery is a sub-optimal arrangement, even just considering it just from an economic p.o.v.

As I pointed out before, the biggest supporters of nineteenth century American slavery were also amongst the biggest proponents of free trade. John C. Calhoun is a perfect example. This is because slavery and free trade are easily compatible. See the sweatshops that produce the junk sold at Walmart for instance.

Yes, and what is that nation comprised of? Consumers. And producers.

A nation is far more than consumers and producers, Thinker. These are merely two economic roles played by members of the nation.

An abstract idea of a nation is not the entity which consumes and produces, it is the consumers and producers therein which consume and produce.

This is false. Only in the bizarre world of Thinker do people actually define their own identities in terms of pure economic categories.

You cannot have an economy without consumers. And you cannot have an economy without producers.

Okay.

However, it is possible (in theory, at least) to have an economy without a nation.

LOL

Don't tell me you about to whip up a cup of anarcho-capitalist fantasy kool aid.

Therefore, an economy is independent of a nation, rather than being dependant on it or existing to serve it.

No. The economy cannot be detached from its social and historical context, Thinker.

[A. Radek]

Most of those "foreign" cars these days are made in the US. GM and Ford are struggling, but Toyoya - with 7 or 8 assembly plants in the US and Canada and 2 more on the way - is doing just fine.

Ford and GM are not struggling because of labor costs. Anybody can look up the costs per car for both GM, Ford, and compare them with the labor costs of Toyota, Honda, etc. What's apparent is their costs are similiar to GM's and Ford's. The difference is GM and Ford want to take advantage of the generous tax breaks and subsidies being handed out for 'outsourcing' to American corporations that Toyota and the foreign manufacturers aren't getting.

GM and Ford wouldn't be in nearly as bad shape as they are now if they weren't paying union workers to sit around and do nothing.

Utter bullshit. You've never even been inside a U.S. auto plant, nor do you know a thing about union workers at them. You're just repeating management PR canards and propaganda here.

[Kodos]

GM suffers from both a bad union( the health benefits to retirees isn't trivial) AND incompetent management...

Most union workers don't do nothing( I think most people's observation of public union construction contracters, where the workers are lazy good for nothing pieces of shit leeching off the taxpayers, feeds this perception) but UAW workers are overpaid...

[1-800]

Our quality of life will be enhanced as more and more people do what they want to do - become accountants or lawyers or nurses or real estate agents or baristas - rather than be stuck with tedious, physical and menial factory work.


People go from from automobile assembly line worker to corporate litigator all the time. After all, it is just a few extra night classes at the technical college.

Accountants, lawyers and even nurses either currently deal with or will have to deal with offshoring, too. Maybe not real-estate agents and baristas. Can we be a nation of real-estate agents and Starbucks baristas?

[Kodos]

One reform towards better management of US corporations, no more quarterly reports... ban them they lead to very bad decisions which help make the bottom line that quarter... Earnings reports should come out every two years...

[Thinker]

I'm glad to see you finally acknowledging that. Yes. I agree. The U.S. manufacturing sector has been laying off workers for decades. This was the whole point of the articles posted above (which, I will remind the gallery, you gloss over and ignore). Why did you introduce the straw topic of the recession into the discussion? To change the subject, of course, to mislead and be disingenious.
Read my 2nd-to-last line in my 2nd post in this thread:

"So, as I said above, output of manufactured goods has been rising, even though employment in these industries has been falling."

I've been acknowledging this before you even responded to a single thing I said. Your accusation is nothing but a straw man.

I introduced the recession because, as I said above, during recessions jobs tend to decline. Roberts started his analysis in January 2001, which would include the recessionary period during 2001 (and sort-of into 2003, when jobs were still declining even though we technically weren't in a recession anymore). Therefore, a substantial part of his analysis period included a recessionary period, which of course is going to entail job losses. His analysis is exacerbated by the fact that, in early 2001, the job market had still been unusually strong. He is starting from an unusually strong peak, and is complaining that we still haven't reached that peak again. Which is unrealistic.

If he had started his analysis in, say, 2003 somewhere, his conclusions might have more validity. Otherwise he is just complaining about something that is naturally expected: That jobs are lost during a recession.

I would be the last to deny that increases in productivity (mostly of a technological nature) has played a role in such layoffs. But it is quite another thing to say that productivity has played the predominant role. See Japan. It is far more accurate to say outsourcing and offshore production is to blame which is directly attributable to our trade policies.
What is it about Japan that enamors you so?

Thinker throws out another false analogy here . . .
Which only exposes your ignorance because, since we're talking about employment, the analogy is perfect.

Take a close look at the manufactured items for sale. Made in China. Made in Japan. Made in Taiwan. Made in Korea. Notice a familar pattern here? Now take a stroll to the other side of the store. Where does the produce, meat, agricultural products, and other groceries for sale come from? Idaho potatoes. Florida oranges. All sorts of corn, grain, sugar, vegetable products. See what I am getting at? The food we consume is still overwhelmingly produced in the United States whereas the manufactured goods we purchase are increasingly being produced abroad. Why is this? Because outsourcing, offshoring production, and free trade, not productivity gains, is the leading cause of such layoffs. This is a policy driven phenomena, not any inexorable economic process at work.
LOL, what a false illustration . . .

Of course most food sold in the US is still grown in the US, because agriculture requires certain conditions to be able to grow, which the US has in abundance.

Unlike agriculture, manufacturing is footloose - you don't need certain climactic and soil conditions to be able to make a TV set, it can be made everywhere.

That said, the US trade surplus in agriculture is rapidly disappearing. So even your illustration is starting to become false. Here's some recent data:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/monthlysummary.htm

Are we in a recession, Thinker?
See first reply this post.

Listen. What's that noise? It's a giant sucking sound.
As you would say, a non-responsive reply.

Interesting. It is inevitable that our televisions, DVD players, automobiles, computers, clothes and so on are coming to be produced abroad and sold back to us. This is an inexorable historical process at work, not a policy driven process. We have absolutely no choice but to buy such goods from foreigners. That is a pretty bold assertion on your part.

Ford doesn't build factories in North Mexico to take advantage of the cheap labor and lax environmental standards that prevail there. Walmart doesn't peddle kitsch manufactured in China . . . and blah blah blah
Ford has, I think, one factory in Mexico (Hermosillo). They still have more than a dozen assembly plants in the US and Canada.

Aside from that, maybe I need to show you this chart about a dozen more times before the concept finally sinks in: In spite of all that cheap junk from China, we are producing more than we ever have:
http://www.nam.org/docs/images/policies/usip005_mfgs.gif

Ah! Interesting conclusion. Why then all the cant about productivity if cheap foreign labour is the cause of such job losses, Thinker?
Are you dense? I think perhaps you are.

Show me where I said that ALL manufacturing job losses are due to productivity improvement, or where I said that ALL manufacturing job losses are due to overseas production?

Another straw man argument - you're claiming I said something that I didn't.

Furthermore, before considering how any given society benefits from massive offshoring of production, I think we should first ask ourselves why some countries have chosen not to take this route.
Yeah - look at which nations have taken this route . . . Brazil, Argentina, India until recently . . . the list of nations with protectionist policies is a list of nations with half-assed economies.

And before you say so, the shelves of stores in Japan are filled with cheap junk from China, too.

Yes. Now tell us what jobs are being generated to replace these manufacturing jobs and what sort of benefits do they offer. Do these jobs offer better wages, better hours, better benefits, and better social mobility?
My response:

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/econreport2005/Slide14.jpg
Source: http://www.dol.gov/_sec/econreport2005/slide14.htm

And this, too:
http://www.dol.gov/_sec/econreport2005/Slide15.jpg
Source: http://www.dol.gov/_sec/econreport2005/slide15.htm

I addressed this false analogy above. The job losses in agriculture over the past hundred years can be attributed to better technology.
In other words, improved productivity.

We are still growing most of food in the United States though.
Which is only because agriculture requires certain soil, real estate and climactic conditions which the US has in abundance. This is not true of other nations such as Japan, the UK, etc. In those nations, the loss of agricultural jobs has been steep over the past 100 years AND they also no longer produce most of the food that they eat.

This is not the case in manufacturing. The huge job losses in that sector are largely attributable to free trade, outsourcing, and offshore production.
Most of the job losses in manufacturing are attributable to productivity improvements. SOME job losses are attributable to offshore production.

In spite of the job losses due to offshore production, that is still a net gain because we gain from getting access to inexpensive goods produced overseas. If we can get TV sets for $200 instead of $500, that raises the standard of living.

This is why manufactured items from textiles to consumer electronics are so often produced abroad. Hence, our exploding trade deficit.
US production of textile products:
http://www.nam.org/Docs/Images/policies/usip530_txtp.gif

Textile materials and aparrel have gone down. Can't win em all.

US production of computers and electronic products:
http://www.nam.org/Docs/Images/policies/usip350_comp.gif

But this is false. The same process is not happening at all. We didn't cease to grow our own food in the United States as Americans began to leave the farm behind to become manufacturing workers in urban centers. We didn't say to Mexico, Brazil, and India: you guys handle that from now on because you can produce agricultural products cheaper than we can. In fact, American agriculture is heavily subsidized and protected by the federal government through all sorts of programs, as you well know.
Once again, this is only because the US has vast expanses of suitable farmland. This is not true of other nations such as Japan, the UK, etc. In those nations, the loss of agricultural jobs has been steep over the past 100 years AND they also no longer produce most of the food that they eat.

You are right. These full time manufacturing workers making higher wages that are being laid off would much rather work part time at McDonald's or Walmart in order to make lower wages. Just ask them. That is why they are positively thrilled about losing their jobs! That is why they are absolutely overjoyed about their economic fortunes, as we can see in opinion poll after opinion poll!
Then why are employers complaining about SHORTAGES of skilled manufacturing workers?
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/22/news/economy/jobs_skill_shortage/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/robotics/2005-11-13-technical-worker-shortage_x.htm
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS01/602020365
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/09/05/story8.html?from_rss=1
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10097038/
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec_illumen.asp?CID=201487&DID=233390
^
Many more where that came from.

Since there are SHORTAGES of high-paying, skilled manufacturing workers, it seems pretty clear to me that people would rather work in Wal-Mart or McDonalds than in a factory.

This is a red herring. The point made by Paul Craig Roberts is that the official unemployment rate is artifically low because discouraged workers have dropped out of the labor force. How do you respond? You ignore the point made by Roberts (which is unassailable, as you well know) and address something totally irrelevant.
The US labor participation rate has declined by about 2% over the past several years. Even if Roberts is correct and it reflects discouraged workers, 2% is not a signficant decline. For comparison, the problem is far worse in other nations.

Most of the rest of your responses aren't worthwhile. You're only interested in ad hominen attacks, not in discussion. Why should I bother?

A few odds and ends . . .

Let's take electronics for example. We once had a thriving electronics industry in the United States, but in recent decades much of this production has been shipped overseas or taken over by foreign competitors.
US production of electronics and computers:
http://www.nam.org/Docs/Images/policies/usip350_comp.gif

"Samsung, the world's largest producer of bulk memory chips, has also been a steady employer. Workers make $50,000 a year, on average, on par with wages at competitors. While Motorola, Advanced Micro Devices and others have cut thousands of jobs since 1998, Samsung has dismissed only a few dozen workers and continues to hire people who lost their jobs at rival companies."
LOL - yeah that's because Samsung is a "hot" company whose sales have been rising dramatically. Once they cease to become so "hot" and their sales decline, they too will start to lay off people just like everyone else.

Japanese and South Koreans pay higher prices for consumer electronic devices, own less such devices, are paying for consumer electronics devices of inferior quality, and better yet companies like Samsung are not expanding their presence here in the United States.
If you would cease to become so sarcastic, I might be able to figure out what you're actual point is.

The shelves of stores in Japan and South Korea are filled with as much cheap junk from China as are the shelves of US stores.

If you think most of those Panasonic and Samsung consumer electronics are actually made in Japan and South Korea, you're kidding yourself.

Did you hear this? Such electronic devices are unaffordable for Japanese and South Korean producers.
Yeah, because they're mostly made in China.

Like the Ford plants in Mexico?
Plant. Singular, not plural.

Feel free to correct me.

This is stupidity. The Japanese and South Koreans know this very well too. The reason these two countries are so wealthy today is because they forsake such a naive economic policy in favor of development. Japan would be a poor agricultural country today specializing in fishing if the Japanese had swallowed your laissez-faire kool aid.
LOL - yeah look at how much wealthier Americans are compared to the Japanese and South Koreans.

If you want Americans to be as wealthy as South Koreans, you've got problems.

Gloss over the fact that the United States became the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world under during the protectionist era and extended its hegemony over the entire hemisphere before going on to conquer much of the world in the Second World War. In contrast, the economic power of the United States relative to the other industrialized powers has been in relative decline for decades now.
Well DUH, if other nations are going to develop at all, it's inevitable that some of them catch up to the US.

Britain's 19th century wealth and domination rested largely on free trade:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/533716.stm

You claimed that Roberts suggested that output was in decline. Please point out for the gallery where he said that or retract your assertion.
Perhaps I need to pull out this quote a million more times before it sinks in:

"US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor."

There is nothing in this statement that suggests output is in decline. Roberts is merely alluding to the fact that production is being offshored and outsourced.
My assertion - which I've proven several times now with my chart - is that manufacturing output in the US has been rising.

Roberts clearly states that manufacturing output in the US has been declining. Again:

"US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor."

You're not going to weasel your way out of this one - his statement is clear.

The only reason Toyota builds assembly plants in the United States is because there are caps on the number of cars it can export here directly from Japan.
This is false.

Refresh my memory. Where did Roberts mention the tobacco industry?
Your reading comprehension is really failing you now. From the first article:

"Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs."

No. The economy cannot be detached from its social and historical context, Thinker.
Yes, it can actually. The fact that we now have a worldwide economy independant of different nations is proof of this.

[Thinker]

One other little note, since Fade is obsessed with Ford and GM's decline . . .

US Motor Vehicle and Equipment Production Workers
http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs_pay/00/0300/pics/motor.gif

Source: http://www.uaw.org/publications/jobs_pay/00/0300/jpe06.html

[Kamandi]

Hey Thinker - please see my PM. :)

[Thinker]

^
Got it. ;)

[Thinker]

To reiterate my point about the shortages of skilled (and high-paid) manufacturing workers, I'll post another article similar to the ones I linked above, since I have a feeling that some people won't bother reading them otherwise . . .

http://compensation.blr.com/display.cfm/id/154944

01/20/2006
Manufacturers Report Shortage of Qualified Workers

Eighty percent of manufacturers say they are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers, according to a survey released by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Institute, and Deloitte Consulting LLP.

An even greater number (90 percent) report a shortage report a moderate or severe shortage of qualified skilled production workers.

Many manufacturers say the shortages are affecting their ability to meet customer demands.

"The talent shortage is not a theoretical or distant problem," says Richard Kleinert of Deloitte Consulting LLP. "Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated these shortages are currently affecting their ability to meet customer demands, with more than half reporting difficulty achieving necessary production levels and 43 percent reporting difficulties increasing productivity."

Manufacturers are also concerned about the skill set of current employees. Kleinert notes that 46 percent reported inadequate problem-solving skills among employees and more than a third cited insufficient reading, writing, and communications skills in the workplace

"Manufacturers face the additional challenge of poor skill levels among current employees,"says Kleinert. "As employers, manufacturers need to do more to develop and engage their employees."

The survey included responses from more than 800 manufacturers.

Link: 2005 Skills Gap Report (http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=202426&DID=235731&DOC=FILE.PDF)

[Thinker]

I need to correct myself on something . . .

The US labor participation rate has declined by about 2% over the past several years. Even if Roberts is correct and it reflects discouraged workers, 2% is not a signficant decline. For comparison, the problem is far worse in other nations.
Actually, that fall in the labor participation rate is closer to 1%, not 2%. Here's the data:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsin/inu0018us0
^
The rate peaked in 1997-2000 at 67.1%

As of 2004, it went down to 66%. That's only a 1.1% decline. Not very significant if you ask me.

[Thinker]

Oh yeah, one more thing . . .

I don't read swill from the Wall Street Journal and the "there shall be open borders crowd."

LOL, you're such a hypocrite and a phony.

You expect me to read stuff from VDare and your other sources, but you refuse to consider anything from my sources.

What a fraud!

[Kodos]

I would be the last to deny that increases in productivity (mostly of a technological nature) has played a role in such layoffs. But it is quite another thing to say that productivity has played the predominant role. See Japan. It is far more accurate to say outsourcing and offshore production is to blame which is directly attributable to our trade policies.

Insourcing is a much bigger issue Fade...

[Thinker]

The US is still the world's largest manufacturing nation:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/03/business/04manu.inline.gif

[A. Radek]

To reiterate my point about the shortages of skilled (and high-paid) manufacturing workers, I'll post another article similar to the ones I linked above, since I have a feeling that some people won't bother reading them otherwise . . .

http://compensation.blr.com/display.cfm/id/154944

01/20/2006
Manufacturers Report Shortage of Qualified Workers

Eighty percent of manufacturers say they are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers, according to a survey released by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Institute, and Deloitte Consulting LLP.

An even greater number (90 percent) report a shortage report a moderate or severe shortage of qualified skilled production workers.

Many manufacturers say the shortages are affecting their ability to meet customer demands.

"The talent shortage is not a theoretical or distant problem," says Richard Kleinert of Deloitte Consulting LLP. "Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated these shortages are currently affecting their ability to meet customer demands, with more than half reporting difficulty achieving necessary production levels and 43 percent reporting difficulties increasing productivity."

Manufacturers are also concerned about the skill set of current employees. Kleinert notes that 46 percent reported inadequate problem-solving skills among employees and more than a third cited insufficient reading, writing, and communications skills in the workplace

"Manufacturers face the additional challenge of poor skill levels among current employees,"says Kleinert. "As employers, manufacturers need to do more to develop and engage their employees."

The survey included responses from more than 800 manufacturers.

Link: 2005 Skills Gap Report (http://www.nam.org/s_nam/bin.asp?CID=202426&DID=235731&DOC=FILE.PDF)


LOL you actually believe this nonsense? These guys are just making excuses to run down and pick up stacks of green cards. They've been claiming this for years, meanwhile they just toss stacks of applications away every week, and claim they 'can't find good help', just as Bill Gates and Microsoft were running ads with no intention at all of hiring Americans. Bell Helicopter and others around here have been claiming this for years. They hire in one door and herd layoffs out the other, then complain 'nobody is willing to stay and learn a trade'. ROFL They finally ran through applicants from all over the country, to the point nobody will bother filling apps for them, a truly mind boggling obstacle course in itself, with literally dozens of requirements that get your resume dumped automatically with out ever being seen by a real person. This is repeated over and over in every company, from Texas Instruments to Chase Manhattan. Thre is a shortage of 20 year olds with 30 years experience, 2 Ph.D's, and single, willing to relocate to NYC or the Bay area and work 90 hours a week for $30K a year and no bennies. That's the 'shortage'. Arkansas can't find enough people willing to relocate and sleep in their cars for 30 hours a week at the Federal minimum wage.

Would you like to buy a bag of magic beans?

[Kodos]

There is no shortage of skilled workers or even outright scientists right now, I've even seen a fortune 500 CEO admit it on CNBC thinker.

[Thinker]

LOL you actually believe this nonsense? These guys are just making excuses to run down and pick up stacks of green cards. They've been claiming this for years, meanwhile they just toss stacks of applications away every week, and claim they 'can't find good help', just as Bill Gates and Microsoft were running ads with no intention at all of hiring Americans. Bell Helicopter and others around here have been claiming this for years. They hire in one door and herd layoffs out the other, then complain 'nobody is willing to stay and learn a trade'. ROFL They finally ran through applicants from all over the country, to the point nobody will bother filling apps for them, a truly mind boggling obstacle course in itself, with literally dozens of requirements that get your resume dumped automatically with out ever being seen by a real person. This is repeated over and over in every company, from Texas Instruments to Chase Manhattan. Thre is a shortage of 20 year olds with 30 years experience, 2 Ph.D's, and single, willing to relocate to NYC or the Bay area and work 90 hours a week for $30K a year and no bennies. That's the 'shortage'. Arkansas can't find enough people willing to sleep in their cars for 30 hours a week at the Federal minimum wage.

Would you like to buy a bag of magic beans?
Read 'em and weep, Radek. I can find you a lot more than just that one:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/22/news/economy/jobs_skill_shortage/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/robotics/2005-11-13-technical-worker-shortage_x.htm
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS01/602020365
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/09/05/story8.html?from_rss=1
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10097038/
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec_illumen.asp?CID=201487&DID=233390

Looking stacks of green cards???

LOL!!! These aren't run-of-the-mill, low-skilled migrants from some Mexican village that are needed, what's in short supply are highly-skilled machinists, electricians, and other technical jobs. You won't find many of those in remote villages in Guatemala.

[A. Radek]

There is no shortage of skilled workers or even outright scientists right now, I've even seen a fortune 500 CEO admit it on CNBC thinker.

Of course there's no shortage. It's a total farce and outright lie. They've ran off so many people, and rely on stealing skilled employees from each other nobody has bothered to train apprentices, and now they can't find suckers to abuse any more. WA WA ..let them fail so somebody with half a clue about how to treat people will get into the businesses.

[A. Radek]

Read 'em and weep, Radek. I can find you a lot more than just that one:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/22/news/economy/jobs_skill_shortage/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/robotics/2005-11-13-technical-worker-shortage_x.htm
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS01/602020365
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/09/05/story8.html?from_rss=1
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10097038/
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec_illumen.asp?CID=201487&DID=233390


Utterly meaningless. These clowns no more know how to deal with the problem than you do. They're talking out their asses, and have been for the llast two decades.

Looking stacks of green cards???

Exactly; the Dept. Of Labor does exactly that for them. You should read the news more.

LOL!!! These aren't run-of-the-mill, low-skilled migrants from some Mexican village that are needed, what's in short supply are highly-skilled machinists, electricians, and other technical jobs. You won't find many of those in remote villages in Guatemala.

Ah, other people get green cards besides unskilled South Americans, Genius; you really are as clueless as you pretend.

[Thinker]

Utterly meaningless. These clowns no more know how to deal with the problem than you do. They're talking out their asses, and have been for the llast two decades.

Your statement is utterly meaningless. As if you know more of what's going on than 815 US manufacturing firms? Ya, right.


Exactly; the Dept. Of Labor does exactly that for them. You should read the news more.

I do read the news. Here are some news articles for you. Maybe you should read them:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/22/news/economy/jobs_skill_shortage/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/robotics/2005-11-13-technical-worker-shortage_x.htm
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS01/602020365
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10097038/
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec_illumen.asp?CID=201487&DID=233390


Ah, other people get green cards besides unskilled South Americans, Genius; you really are as clueless as you pretend.
Oh, I see. All those software engineers from India and China are instead taking up jobs as welders? Hmmm . . .

[Thinker]

Here's one for ya . . . Even manufacturers in China are starting to have a hard time finding workers:

Chinese factories struggle to hire (http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2005-04-11-china-labor_x.htm)

If even in China manufacturers have difficultly finding sufficent numbers of workers, why is it so hard to believe that American manufacturers would have the same problem?

[Kodos]

If even in China manufacturers have difficultly finding sufficent numbers of workers

ROTFLMAO China has 100 million rural unemployed, vhat bullshit.

[Thinker]

If even in China manufacturers have difficultly finding sufficent numbers of workers

ROTFLMAO China has 100 million rural unemployed, vhat bullshit.
That's where you don't understand.

If those 100 million rural unemployed don't want those factory jobs in factories outside of Hong Kong, then there is a shortage.

Likewise, if all those people working at Wal-Mart in the US don't want jobs as machinists in a factory, then there is a shortage there as well.

If there are jobs no one wants to do, it doesn't matter how many unemployed people there are in the overall economy: The fact is, is that the employers in those industries cannot find enough workers willing to do those jobs. If they cannot find enough workers willing to do those jobs, there is a shortage of people willing to do those jobs. A shortage is a shortage by whatever means.

[1-800]

The question we really need to ask is...

After the first five million, how much more can you improve your standard of living?

:confused:

[President Camacho]

"Samsung, the world's largest producer of bulk memory chips, has also been a steady employer. Workers make $50,000 a year, on average, on par with wages at competitors. While Motorola, Advanced Micro Devices and others have cut thousands of jobs since 1998, Samsung has dismissed only a few dozen workers and continues to hire people who lost their jobs at rival companies."I have heard this is a major cultural difference between the US and Japan... supposedly the "ratchet effect" is much worse here than there. In America during a recession, wages remain constant or even go up but people are laid off en masse; in Japan, wages are usually just decreased but many get to keep their jobs. The worker is respected much more....

[Thinker]

LOL, I just realized something which further proves that Fade has no idea what he's talking about, and is pulling out information without even paying attention to it . . .

In other words, with a half dozen or more consumer electronics makers (for example) competing against each other for US consumer's wallets, that competition alone will cut profit margins. The fact that production of these goods is very labor-intensive compounds the problem: You cannot expect high wages in an industry with low profit margins AND a need for huge quantities of workers.
Is that so?

http://www.wcit.org/topics/imports/outsourcing_NYT_2--11-04.htm

"Samsung, the world's largest producer of bulk memory chips, has also been a steady employer. Workers make $50,000 a year, on average, on par with wages at competitors. While Motorola, Advanced Micro Devices and others have cut thousands of jobs since 1998, Samsung has dismissed only a few dozen workers and continues to hire people who lost their jobs at rival companies."

1. Read the link. The article is about a Samsung plant in Texas, not in South Korea.
2. The product this plant produces is memory chips. Microchip (including memory chip) plants are super-duper high tech, ultra-automated, capital intensive, very labor extensive operations. This is NOT the same thing as a TV factory, not even close.

He thought he could beat my argument about labor-intensive industries by giving me an example of a labor-intensive industry which was nevertheless hiring people in its home country of Korea, when in fact this company was hiring people OUTSIDE of Korea, and furthermore, the product this company produces in this plant is NOT a labor-intensive product, it is the exact opposite of it!!

:P

[Fade the Butcher]

Read my 2nd-to-last line in my 2nd post in this thread

I have already, thoroughly, read all your posts in this thread. You have no valid reason to repeat yourself ad nauseum (which doesn't win you any points in this debate). You could, however, start addressing the points actually made by Paul Craig Roberts in his article as opposed to all the straw topics you have since littered this thread with which have nothing to do with the subject.

I've been acknowledging this before you even responded to a single thing I said.

Okay. You agree that American manufacturers have laid off millions of workers. I believe this was the point Paul Craig Roberts was making; that the job profile of American citizens is changing and becoming more service based. If you didn't dispute his findings, then why didn't you just acknowledge this at the outset of the thread? Why have you maligned "VDARE analysts" if you happen to agree with what they are saying? Why didn't you say: Fade, I am glad you posted this article for the gallery, as what Paul Craig Roberts is saying is true and I agree.

Your accusation is nothing but a straw man.

This is false. I did not accuse you of denying that American manufacturers were laying off their workers. I did point out though that you have dishonestly attempted to shift the nature of this discussion to the topic of manufacturing output which was not addressed in the initial article.

I introduced the recession because, as I said above, during recessions jobs tend to decline. Roberts started his analysis in January 2001, which would include the recessionary period during 2001 (and sort-of into 2003, when jobs were still declining even though we technically weren't in a recession anymore). Therefore, a substantial part of his analysis period included a recessionary period, which of course is going to entail job losses.

You later pointed out that American manufacturers have been laying off workers for decades irrespective of whether the economy was in recession or not. Recession thus cannot be the driving cause of such layoffs. Paul Craig Roberts has not said that businesses do not lay off workers in recessions. He has claimed outsourcing, free trade, and offshoring is driving these jobs losses. Do you dispute that? Do you deny that employers are shipping production overseas to take advantage of cheap third world labor? You seemed to acknowledge this fact towards the end of your own post.

His analysis is exacerbated by the fact that, in early 2001, the job market had still been unusually strong. He is starting from an unusually strong peak, and is complaining that we still haven't reached that peak again. Which is unrealistic.

You are being dishonest here, Thinker. Paul Craig Roberts has documented the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs in the past several years; job losses that are not being driven by economic recession as you acknowledge (i.e., you agree we are not in a recession today). This has coincided with the shift towards a service based economy which, again, has been going on for decades. Now answer my question. Is Roberts really being unrealistic or are you being dishonest? Are you suggesting here that it is "realistic" that we can expect these jobs to return to the United States or is Roberts absolutely right for pointing out that it is "unrealistic" they will be coming back?

If he had started his analysis in, say, 2003 somewhere, his conclusions might have more validity.

That wouldn't make much sense. Do I have to remind you that you pointed out yourself in your previous post that the job losses in manufacturing have been accumulating irrespective of whether or not the economy is in recession?

Otherwise he is just complaining about something that is naturally expected: That jobs are lost during a recession.

"The US manufacturing sector has been slowly and steadily losing jobs for decades, whether in a recession or not."
—Thinker

What is it about Japan that enamors you so?

Japan refutes everything you are saying. Japan is a homogeneous nation-state with a rich culture. The Japanese forsake massive third world immigration in favor research and development into robotics (a field in which they lead the world). The Japanese live longer lives than Americans. They own far more consumer electronics and lead the world in many areas of advanced technology and manufacturing. The Japanese have captured an enormous share of the American automobile market not vice versa. They protect their own market but still make great quality cars. There is far less income inequality in Japan; the social product of Japan is more evenly distributed. Japan is not making any so-called "natural transition" to a service based economy. They enjoy a huge trade surplus which is why they are snapping up American assets left and right. The Japanese don't bully other nations and play global police. The Japanese are collectivists and do not deny the existence of racial differences.

Which only exposes your ignorance because, since we're talking about employment, the analogy is perfect.

This is false. The food we consume in America is overwhelmingly grown in the United States. The decline in agricultural employment is due to advances in productivity, that is, better technology and consolidation of farms. This is not the case in the manufacturing sector. The manufactured goods we consume are increasingly being produced abroad, not in America, because of the exploitation of cheap third world labor. It's a false analogy because productivity is not driving lay offs in the manufacturing sector. The decline in employment in manufacturing is driven by a different set of causal factors.

LOL, what a false illustration . . .

Yes. It was a brilliant riposte. I am quite proud of it. Thanks.

Of course most food sold in the US is still grown in the US, because agriculture requires certain conditions to be able to grow, which the US has in abundance.

Exactly. You cannot compare agriculture to manufacturing. They are essentially different. The lay offs in the manufacturing sector are not being driven by productivity changes. We don't need hordes of Negroes to pick cotton because we have better technology. Furthermore, American agriculture is heavily protected and subsidized. For example, Americans pay far more than the market price for milk and sugar. American farmers are protected from foreign competition by all sorts of schemes like, say, cotton producers in Mississippi and Alabama. There are also regulatory agencies like the FDA that ensure we are consuming only quality food.

Unlike agriculture, manufacturing is footloose - you don't need certain climactic and soil conditions to be able to make a TV set, it can be made everywhere.

I see. You are suggesting here that agriculture and manufacturing are essentially different, as you say, food cannot be grown anywhere in all conditions. But this is all besides the point. The fact of the matter is that productivity is not driving job losses in the manufacturing sector. The shift from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy, however, can be attributed to productivity changes, to better technology and consolidation. If this was an inexorable process, then the pattern would repeat itself in all nations. That is not the case, as any rational observer can clearly see. Japan hasn't developed such a service economy.

That said, the US trade surplus in agriculture is rapidly disappearing.

Why is that?

So even your illustration is starting to become false. Here's some recent data

This doesn't falsify anything I said. On the contrary, we are importing more food because of many of the trade agreements we have entered into.

See first reply this post.

Okay. We are not in a recession. We are still shedding manufacturing jobs left and right, ergo, a recession cannot be driving such job losses right now.

"During an extremely healthy recovery, you *might* get a small gain (for example, I think during the Clinton years, manufacturing jobs increased very slightly). But all of that is just "noise" in the larger trend."
—Thinker

As you would say, a non-responsive reply.

"If these sorts of things can be produced cheaply overseas, society benefits because the lower price will enable more people to purchase these things."
—Thinker

Ford has, I think, one factory in Mexico (Hermosillo).

When did Ford build this plant? Better yet, why did Ford build this plant in Northern Mexico as opposed to the United States? Do you agree, Thinker, that Ford is simply exploiting cheap Mexican labor and lack of environmental regulations?

They still have more than a dozen assembly plants in the US and Canada.

And we discussed the job lay offs that are in store at such Ford plants in the other thread.

Aside from that, maybe I need to show you this chart about a dozen more times before the concept finally sinks in: In spite of all that cheap junk from China, we are producing more than we ever have

Okay. I will ask the gallery to please take note of the fact that Thinker has been reduced to repeating points ad nauseum that have never been in dispute in the course of this discussion.

Are you dense? I think perhaps you are.

Danke.

Show me where I said that ALL manufacturing job losses are due to productivity improvement, or where I said that ALL manufacturing job losses are due to overseas production? Another straw man argument - you're claiming I said something that I didn't.

You suggested in your previous post that such job losses were primarily due to the recession and productivity improvement. Have you already forgotten your dishonest analogy to American agriculture? If these job losses are primarily attributable to outsourcing, offshoring producting, and free trade, then why don't you simply come flat out and say that Paul Craig Roberts is right?

Yeah - look at which nations have taken this route . . .

Yes. Let's do that. Let's start with the United States and Japan. I highly recommend Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1843310279/102-9245472-9874520?v=glance&n=283155).

Brazil, Argentina, India until recently . . . the list of nations with protectionist policies is a list of nations with half-assed economies.

1.) India used to be one of the most industrialized nations in the world. India was deindustrialized under British rule during the 18th and 19th centuries and was an agricultural backwater under laissez-faire free trade.
2.) Brazil is a backwater because has more blacks than any other country in the world save Nigeria. Poor human capital.
3.) Argentina I will address in a separate post.

[Fade the Butcher]

And before you say so, the shelves of stores in Japan are filled with cheap junk from China, too.

The Japanese also have access to cheap Japanese electronics. In fact, Japan has a thriving consumer electronics industry.

LOL - yeah that's because Samsung is a "hot" company whose sales have been rising dramatically. Once they cease to become so "hot" and their sales decline, they too will start to lay off people just like everyone else.

Another free traitor prophecy. We are still waiting for the "new economy" to materialize. What happened to all those "knowledge jobs" that were supposed to replace our manufacturing base back in the 1990s? Oh yeah. We are outsourcing those jobs too. I guess that sucks for all the IT professionals who invested so much of their money in education thanks to bullshit sold to them by the likes of Thomas Friedman and James Glassman. Glassman is a big free traitor and critic of Lou Dobbs. Do you happen to have his Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609806998/102-9245472-9874520?v=glance&n=283155) by chance, Thinker? It sounds like it would interest you.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0609806998.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Wait. I forgot to mention that it was published in 2000. :p

My response

You posted both these graphs in the other thread. The struck me as totally bogus so I went back and examined a year's worth of payroll data and illustrated that they were utterly false.

In other words, improved productivity.

Yes. IN AGRICULTURE, NOT MANUFACTURING.

Which is only because agriculture requires certain soil, real estate and climactic conditions which the US has in abundance.

This is false. You have already pointed out above that our trade surplus in agricultural products is in decline. And I pointed out this is in large part because of international free trade agreements such as NAFTA.

This is not true of other nations such as Japan, the UK, etc. In those nations, the loss of agricultural jobs has been steep over the past 100 years AND they also no longer produce most of the food that they eat. This is not true of other nations such as Japan, the UK, etc. In those nations, the loss of agricultural jobs has been steep over the past 100 years AND they also no longer produce most of the food that they eat.


There HAS NOT been a comparable loss of manufacturing jobs in Japan, however. Thus, Thinker's analogy fails.

Most of the job losses in manufacturing are attributable to productivity improvements.

"Are you dense? I think perhaps you are. Show me where I said that ALL manufacturing job losses are due to productivity improvement, or where I said that ALL manufacturing job losses are due to overseas production? Another straw man argument - you're claiming I said something that I didn't."
—Thinker

In spite of the job losses due to offshore production, that is still a net gain because we gain from getting access to inexpensive goods produced overseas.

This is false. It is not a net gain. Our huge trade deficit puts downward pressure on our currency. Such foreign manufactured products will become dramatically more expensive as the value of the dollar falls of a cliff.

If we can get TV sets for $200 instead of $500, that raises the standard of living.

Thinker is peddling the myth here that protectionism equals higher prices. This is false. I pointed out the example of Japan and South Korea in my previous post. The Japanese and South Koreans have cutting edge consumer electronics industries and own far more consumer electronic goods than Americans do.

Textile materials and aparrel have gone down. Can't win em all.

= cheap third world labor abroad.

Once again, this is only because the US has vast expanses of suitable farmland.

This doesn't follow. If that were the case, then our trade surplus in agricultural products would not be decreasing.

Then why are employers complaining about SHORTAGES of skilled manufacturing workers?

Let me remind the gallery of your previous post:

"Our quality of life will be enhanced as more and more people do what they want to do - become accountants or lawyers or nurses or real estate agents or baristas - rather than be stuck with tedious, physical and menial factory work."
—Thinker

Does the gallery see the cheap dishonest sleight of hand here? Thinker first asserts that these people are leaving their manufacturing jobs for better jobs. I responded and pointed out that this wasn't happening at all; that these people were being laid off. I then asked him what these laid off employees have to say about losing their jobs, as Thinker claims they are perfectly fine, wonderful in fact, and that they are moving on to greener pastures. Thinker replies, not by addressing my question, but asking what employers (that is, the people who fired these employees) are saying.

Why are employers complaining about the shortages of "skilled workers"? Because they are liars. That's why. Because they don't want want to pay first world labor first world wages. Because free traitors want to import hordes of foreigners from abroad to drive down wages, to immiserate their fellow citizens, and exploit third world peons in order to enrich themselves.

Since there are SHORTAGES of high-paying, skilled manufacturing workers, it seems pretty clear to me that people would rather work in Wal-Mart or McDonalds than in a factory.

Impressive reasoning Thinker.

1.) Laid off employees are leaving their manufacturing jobs to find existential meaning working at Walmart and McDonald's.
2.) I ask you what these people whom you claim are doing just fine have to say.
3.) You respond by pointing out that the employers who laid them off are saying that there are shortages of skilled workers.
4.) Employers say such shortages exist, ergo, its true, ergo these employees prefer to work in Walmart as opposed to factories!

How long is it going to take you to realize that the people who post here aren't dumb enough to fall for your cheap rhetorical tricks which you as cover for you inability to make substantial critical points?

The US labor participation rate has declined by about 2% over the past several years. Even if Roberts is correct and it reflects discouraged workers, 2% is not a signficant decline. For comparison, the problem is far worse in other nations.

Roberts is right. America is in the midst of a job depression.

Most of the rest of your responses aren't worthwhile. You're only interested in ad hominen attacks, not in discussion. Why should I bother?

This is nonresponsive.

US production of electronics and computers:

Note: Electronics industry includes employees.

If you would cease to become so sarcastic, I might be able to figure out what you're actual point is.

That your free traitor snake oil isn't selling here. That South Korea and Japan refute what you are saying.

The shelves of stores in Japan and South Korea are filled with as much cheap junk from China as are the shelves of US stores.

Are you saying that the South Koreans and Japanese can afford cheap electronics because they can buy Chinese imports?

If you think most of those Panasonic and Samsung consumer electronics are actually made in Japan and South Korea, you're kidding yourself.

See above.

Yeah, because they're mostly made in China.

Let's see your evidence.

Plant. Singular, not plural. Feel free to correct me.

No problem.

http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji-00110820060119&feed=dji&date=20060119

"Ford has a total of 18 North American assembly plants, including two in Mexico."

LOL - yeah look at how much wealthier Americans are compared to the Japanese and South Koreans.

America also engaged in extensive protectionism during the nineteenth century. The Japanese took note of this and followed suit. If the Japanese and South Koreans had forsaken industrial development in favor of free trade s you have had them do, then both of these countries would still be pursuing their 'comparative advantage' as impoverished agricultural nations, as would the United States.

If you want Americans to be as wealthy as South Koreans, you've got problems.

The United States didn't become an industrial colossus by engaging in free trade. America also pursued industrial development.

Well DUH, if other nations are going to develop at all, it's inevitable that some of them catch up to the US.

This is nonresponsive. The economic position of the U.S. has eroded because of its trade policies, specifically, the quid pro quos given to Germany and Japan in exchange for their support in the Cold War.

Britain's 19th century wealth and domination rested largely on free trade:

Britain was the most protected economy on earth for centuries. Britain became a great power through industrial development, as Ha-Joon Chang explains, and only later switched over to 'free trade' to 'kick down the ladder' once it was in a position of economic strength just like America. Furthermore, free trade ruined the British Empire, as Britain was knocked off its pedestal by protectionist America and Germany. Correlli Barnett describes this process in detail in his book The Collapse of British Power (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0391034391/102-9245472-9874520?v=glance&n=283155)

Perhaps I need to pull out this quote a million more times before it sinks in

Repeating yourself ad nauseum isn't an argument. Roberts was referring to offshoring.

My assertion - which I've proven several times now with my chart - is that manufacturing output in the US has been rising.

You have been beating the same straw man through several pages of this thread now. No one claimed that manufacturing output was in decline.

Roberts clearly states that manufacturing output in the US has been declining. You're not going to weasel your way out of this one - his statement is clear.

LOL

This is becoming pathetic. Just admit you misinterpreted the passage and concede the point. Roberts was referring to American corporations offshoring production.

This is false.

No. It is true. Such caps were established in the 1980s during the Reagan administration.

Your reading comprehension is really failing you now. From the first article:

Thanks for reminding me. I didn't say Roberts failed to make the point. I was just too lazy to look for it in the course of my response.

Yes, it can actually. The fact that we now have a worldwide economy independant of different nations is proof of this.

<snort, chortle, guffaw>

No, Thinker. The production of automobiles in Japan is at the end of a long causal chain that can be traced back to social and historical developments internal to the West. No one can deny history. We are all immersed in it.

[Kodos]

Likewise, if all those people working at Wal-Mart in the US don't want jobs as machinists in a factory, then there is a shortage there as well.

ROTFLMAO...

[Fade the Butcher]

Jesus Christ. You know Thinker is selling some snake oil if he can't even bring Weikel on board. :p

[Kodos]

Jesus Christ. You know Thinker is selling some snake oil if he can't even bring Weikel on board. :p

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would honestly claim that walmart clerks wouldn't want a "skilled worker" job...

[1-800]

Even though I detest cheerleading...

Excellent posts, Fade.

Now, allow for some 'futurizing' (an exercise that either brightens your day or makes you want to curl up into a fetal position, depending)...

Yes, things ARE going to get worse for the American worker. Of course, it won't be 'roasting household pets over a spit with one hand, clutching a Magnum in the other' bad, though (sorry, WN revolutionistas).

Americans will experience a gradual erosion of living standards, especially once the real-estate market cools. I don't see how it will get better from there. All the short-term fixes will surely exacerbate the problem in the long run (and we haven't even touched on the sticky issue of energy yet).

Of course, I'm majoring in chemical engineering and my last economics course was freshman year. But hey, the foremost champions of 'fwee trade' and eternal economic optimists, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman, majored in history and FRIGGIN' Middle Eastern Studies, respectively.

[A. Radek]

This guy actually believes what he reads in the business tout sheets, so what do you expect? He really thinks people with no money can migrate around freely, those bums in the Bronx are just too lazy to walk to Des Moines to put in an app at the new Walmart Supercenter, and that's why they're unemployed. True genius, the kid is. Sharp as a tack ...

[Fade the Butcher]

Oh yeah, one more thing . . .LOL, you're such a hypocrite and a phony.

How so?

You expect me to read stuff from VDare and your other sources, but you refuse to consider anything from my sources. What a fraud!

Traitors have no credibility to speak about what is best for America.

[A. Radek]

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would honestly claim that walmart clerks wouldn't want a "skilled worker" job...

You're lying. In every commercial I've seen, Wally World clerks are obviously just tickled shitless to be working there, and falling all over themselves to wait on us.

[1-800]

This guy actually believes what he reads in the business tout sheets, so what do you expect? He really thinks people with no money can migrate around freely, those bums in the Bronx are just too lazy to walk to Des Moines to put in an app at the new Walmart Supercenter, and that's why they're unemployed. True genius, the kid is. Sharp as a tack ...

Did you know that being laid off from a Ford assembly line means that you can finally pursue your dream of being a high-powered corporate attorney?

Whoops, what's that? You're 48 years old, have three kids in college, a mortgage to pay off and a wife with diabetes? And you don't even have a bachelor's???

Oh, well, you're a smart guy. I'm sure that you'll make assistant manager at Taco Bell within the month!

Service jobs: THE NEW ECONOMY.

[Kodos]

You're lying. In every commercial I've seen, Wally World clerks are obviously just tickled shitless to be working there, and falling all over themselves to wait on us.

Ive people who told me it wasn't so bad as far as teenage retail goes... but you wouldn't want a career in Walmart unless you were regional manager or above...

[1-800]

You're lying. In every commercial I've seen, Wally World clerks are obviously just tickled shitless to be working there, and falling all over themselves to wait on us.

Okay, one more. I worked at Target throughout high school (basically Wal-Mart, maybe a little better, actually)--you simply cannot support a family working there unless you were an assistant manager or manager, even if you put in sixty hours a week.

[Fade the Butcher]

Did you know that being laid off from a Ford assembly line means that you can finally pursue your dream of being a high-powered corporate attorney?

These people are just leaving their manufacturing jobs to pursue the jobs they desire. They are becoming accountants! I almost fell out my chair laughing when I heard that one.

[Fade the Butcher]

Okay, one more. I worked at Target throughout high school (basically Wal-Mart, maybe a little better, actually)--you simply cannot support a family working there unless you were an assistant manager or manager, even if you put in sixty hours a week.

Hey. You seem to have forgotten that we are only consumers. Consumer = American. We define our social identity purely in terms of the material goods that we consume!

[1-800]

Ive people who told me it wasn't so bad as far as teenage retail goes... but you wouldn't want a career in Walmart unless you were regional manager or above...

I worked at Target; it sucked.

I have a friend who has a B.S. in business administration and he's currently an assistant manager at a Sam's Club--he makes around $38,000 per year, store managers make around $75,000. Not bad, but, of course, if you only have a GED and start out as a cashier or deli worker, that is where you are going to stay.

[Fade the Butcher]

LOL, I just realized something which further proves that Fade has no idea what he's talking about, and is pulling out information without even paying attention to it . . .

Thinker gets excited and swoops in for the kill. :p

1. Read the link. The article is about a Samsung plant in Texas, not in South Korea.

Yes. I know that! That is why I specifically cited the example: even foreigners can pay Americans decent wages. Why can't American employers?

2. The product this plant produces is memory chips. Microchip (including memory chip) plants are super-duper high tech, ultra-automated, capital intensive, very labor extensive operations. This is NOT the same thing as a TV factory, not even close.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D7143CF930A35756C0A9659C8B63

"The plant accounts for about 10 percent of the company's chip-making capacity and is the only Samsung chip plant outside of South Korea.

He thought he could beat my argument about labor-intensive industries by giving me an example of a labor-intensive industry which was nevertheless hiring people in its home country of Korea, when in fact this company was hiring people OUTSIDE of Korea, and furthermore, the product this company produces in this plant is NOT a labor-intensive product, it is the exact opposite of it!!

This plant produces semiconductors, right? Aren't we laying off American workers who produce semiconductors left and right?

[Fade the Butcher]

To reiterate my point about the shortages of skilled (and high-paid) manufacturing workers, I'll post another article similar to the ones I linked above, since I have a feeling that some people won't bother reading them otherwise . . .

Ah. I get your point.

1.) Manufacturers say they are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers.
2.) Manufacturers must therefore really be experiencing a shortage of qualified workers, as they would never lie.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes, things ARE going to get worse for the American worker.

You are wrong, obviously. 4% of Americans think the economy is excellent (this would include Thinker).

Americans Remain Pessimistic About Economy

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060217ii.gif

Gallup (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21514)

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Bush has been touting the progress in the U.S. economy this week, and the new head of the Federal Reserve, Benjamin Bernanke, gave generally positive views on economic conditions in the country in his testimony on Capitol Hill. The Dow Jones average has been above 11,000; in January, housing starts were more robust than expected; and reports on retail spending were also more positive than expected.

Despite the positive nature of these so-called "hard" economic indicators, however, the attitudes of the average American consumer toward the economy remain relatively dour. Majorities of Americans rate economic conditions at the moment as "only fair" or "poor," say economic conditions in the United States are getting worse, and say now is a bad time to be looking for a quality job. It is hard to determine precisely what criteria Americans are using for these judgments, particularly since a majority also say that the most important problems facing the country today are non-economic in nature. . . .

[Fade the Butcher]

The Labor Shortage Hoax

Alan Tonelson
Friday, January 27, 2006

American Economic Alert (http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=2205)

There’s a new glut on world markets. No, I’m not talking about the gluts of Chinese apparel or shares of Google stock bought at $475 each or of sub-prime U.S. lenders. I’m talking about the new glut of studies claiming that what really ails the U.S. economy is a shortage of skilled workers.

In fact, all these studies really show is that there’s still another glut that’s engulfed the economic policymaking world – of raw, unadulterated chutzpah. What else could explain the contention that, as American multinational companies continue offshoring even the nation’s most knowledge-intensive, best-paying jobs, the biggest problem these same companies face at home (along with smaller firms) is finding enough qualified workers to take advantage of all the extraordinary career opportunities they’re creating?

Not surprisingly, these studies are all coming from the outsourcing lobby itself. In November, the National Association of Manufacturers, whose sector of the economy has lost 3.34 million jobs since employment peaked in 1998, reported finding “a widening gap between the dwindling supply of skilled workers in America and the growing technical demands of the modern manufacturing workplace.” In fact, 39 percent of the firms responding to a NAM-sponsored survey reported shortages of unskilled production workers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce chimed in shortly after the new year, declaring in its new State of American Business report, “We are staring right in the face of a severe worker shortage as 77 million baby boomers prepare to retire in the next five years....” Added the Chamber, “Many new jobs will require more technical skills and a greater understanding of math and science, subjects in which American students fail to show a suitable level of competence or even interest.”

And the leading lobby for high- tech outsourcers, the Information Technology Association of America, continues to warn of a crisis in the availability of technically skilled workers and the need to greatly expand the number of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians graduating from American colleges and universities.

What’s wrong with these findings? Only two things: First, the main studies themselves are slipshod methodogically and internally contradictory. Second, they clash with everything known about major trends in the U.S. labor market, and about labor shortages themselves.

The study attracting the most attention has been NAM’s effort, a survey of manufacturers conducted by Deloitte Consulting. To put it mildly, NAM should ask for its money back. Only 10 percent of the 8,000 companies contacted by Deloitte replied, and as Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel noted, lots of self-selection surely was at work. Specifically, employers not perceiving any shortages probably were much less likely to bother responding than those that did.

Further, Deloitte ignored a major irony that practically shouts out from the results: Although the consulting firm recommended that companies spend at least three percent of their payrolls on employee training, it found that fully three-quarters of all respondents fell short of this threshold. Moreover, only half the total respondents have increased their training expenditures over the last three years. And 64 percent of total respondents are training 60 percent of their workers or fewer. Does this sound like the behavior of firms that value trained workers and are desperate to secure them?

Similarly, many of the policies long championed by these multinational-dominated business groups thoroughly undercut their professed concerns about labor shortages. For example, it’s hard to imagine that talented people will flock to manufacturing production careers in a nation whose trade policies encourage the massive offshoring of such jobs. And it’s hard to imagine that talented people will flock to research, development, engineering, and design careers in manufacturing in a nation that not only encourages the offshoring of these jobs, too, but that admits large numbers of immigrants who will do this work for bargain basement pay. Yet that’s exactly the kind of nation that Washington has given us – at the behest of the same multinationals now crying “Labor shortage!” Talk about creating a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Indeed, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donahue has declared that passing a new immigration reform bill with a guest worker program is one of his organization’s top priorities this year.

Just as important as the incoherence of these multinational positions is the overwhelming evidence from the U.S. labor market exposing the shortage claims as bunk. Actually, according to mainstream economic theory, the very idea of long-term shortages or surpluses of any commodity (including, by definition, labor) is a non-starter. And if you think about it, the theory makes perfect sense. It holds that through the workings of the price mechanism, markets will eventually clear and stability will be restored.

In the case of worker shortages, employers simply need to increases wages enough, and before too long, they will be able to attract whatever workers they need – either from the ranks of the voluntarily or involuntarily unemployed, or from competitors. Of course, the opposite is equally true. As long as workers are in over-supply, businesses can offer meager wages in full confidence that qualified workers and jobseekers will have no choice but to swallow them.

In other words, anyone believing in modern economics should recognize that manufacturers aren’t facing a chronic labor shortage. If they were, they wouldn’t be cutting wages. Instead, they face a shortage of workers willing to accept the paltry wages they have been offered. How paltry? The latest figures from the U.S. Department of Labor show that after peaking in1978 – yes, 28 years ago, inflation-adjusted wages for manufacturing workers have fallen back to levels they first hit in 1972.

Of course, the policy whizzes at the NAM have an explanation. As stated by Jerry Jasinowski, the organization’s former president and how head of its Manufacturing Institute, the stagnating wage figures are much less important than the increasingly lavish benefits received by the typical manufacturing worker. NAM Chief Economist David Huether has added that, since 2000, wages have fallen from 84 percent of total manufacturing compensation to 80 percent, with growing health care costs the main reason.

But do these NAM bigwigs really mean to suggest that industrial workers are making out like bandits as a result – pocketing most or all of the higher health care payments to boost their real living standards? Surely, Jasinowski and Huether know that today’s health care costs are eating up the benefit payments – meaning that workers’ other needs and wants have to be paid for by their shrinking wages, or by more borrowing. And surely these NAM experts know that the multinational outsourcers that dominate their organization’s leadership, along with so many other companies, are starting to reduce the absolute levels of these non-wage benefits. Again, companies really facing a labor shortage would be doing just the opposite.

In addition, everything known about the dominant trends in the U.S. labor market clashes with claims of chronic labor shortages. For example, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has echoed the outsourcers’ claims of shortages of skilled labor, of lots of great jobs going begging, and of greater shortages looming ahead.

But she clearly hasn’t read her own Department’s latest projections of national workforce trends. They anticipate that nearly 40 percent of the new jobs that will have been created between 2004 and 2014 in the economy's fastest-growing occupations will require only short-term or moderate-term on-the-job training – i.e., no post-secondary school at all. Moreover, another 9 percent of these jobs will only require a two-year (Associates) degree. The predominance of jobs lacking B.A. requirements is even greater in those professions that will remain America's largest employers in absolute terms. This sounds more like a Wal-Mart-centric economy than a technology-centric economy.

And here’s a result that made me, for one, laugh out loud: These Labor Department projections do indeed generally show that the more training a job requires, the higher the pay. But do you know what the Labor Department considers “very high” pay – its highest pay category? A grand total of $43,600 in total annual earnings. Not exactly a high bar.

In fact, there’s only one sector of the economy that could plausibly be suffering a genuine shortage of skilled labor. The NAM report found that small employers are slightly less likely than large employers to report shortages. But this claim conflicts not only with anecdotal evidence I’ve run across recently, but common sense.

Some smaller manufacturers I’ve met over the last year say that business has recovered since the recession, and they’re once again hiring. But they feel victimized by two related problems. First, their margins have been squeezed relentlessly by their bigger manufacturers they supply, who keep threatening to turn to Chinese suppliers if the little guys don’t match Chinese costs. Therefore, smaller companies are struggling to generate the earnings they need to offer workers higher wages. Second, some little guys observe that the skilled workers they laid off during the last recession aren’t returning to compete for their old jobs. One possible explanation: These missing workers fear another round of layoffs, and are sacrificing pay for greater job security.

Many multinationals face price squeezes, too, but of course unlike a 20-worker machine shop in northeastern Ohio, they often can respond by offshoring to China. This option explains much of the record profits these companies have been earning – profits that clearly aren’t being spent on attracting skilled workers with better pay offers, or on training existing workers.

It’s clear, then, that most labor shortage claims are simply meant to justify the multinationals’ continued resort to the low-wage strategy to greater short-term profits, either through offshoring jobs and production, or through flooding the U.S. labor market with immigrants. But give credit to the outsourcing lobby – it’s not only pressing on, but has added a new twist to their argument: The outsourcers are turning up skilled-labor shortages in China and India, too, according to numerous news reports like the January 4 Wall Street Journal item titled “India’s Talent Pool Drying Up.”

Apparently even most university graduates from two Asian giants with science and technology degrees lack the qualifications multinationals say they need. The reason? The higher education in these countries varies wildly in quality, and often badly lags American standards. One big difference between the Asian situation and the American, however, is that the outsourcers have been bidding up wages abroad for the all-stars they’re seeking – though their pay is still orders of magnitude lower than U.S. levels.

Luckily for them, even lower-wage countries like the Philippines, Russia, and Vietnam are beckoning. So before too long, look for wages for skilled labor worldwide to resume falling. I can’t help but wonder how the outsourcers will sell their products when every major world population is becoming steadily pauperized. Presumably, they’ll cross that bridge when they come to it.

[Thinker]

Incidentally, I (partially) retract one of my claims I've said several times . . .

Manufacturers haven't been laying off people "for decades." The big decline in manufacturing jobs in the US is actually only very recent. Between the mid-60's and 2000, manufacturing employment stayed roughly the same, with swings up and down during recessions and expansions.

Here's a chart showing total manufacturing employment in the US since 1950:

http://www.economagic.com/gif/g7101120330225035522364222728474736.gif

In case that doesn't show properly, the link is here:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/blsce/ces3000000001+1950+2006+0+0+0+290+545++0

Even after NAFTA was passed in the early 90's, manufacturing employment went up somewhat in the mid-late 90's.

And of course we started importing manufactured goods on a large scale from Japan (and later Korea) starting in the 60's. You can see how much that did to effect manufacturing employment - not!

[Thinker]

You are wrong, obviously. 4% of Americans think the economy is excellent (this would include Thinker).

Americans Remain Pessimistic About Economy

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060217ii.gif

Gallup (http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21514)
LOL!!! You're such a phony again!!

Only 20% of the respondants of that poll said the economy was doing "poor." The rest said it was doing "fair" or better.

And since you're putting words in my mouth again, if I had responded to that poll I would have said it's doing "good," not "excellent." That puts me with 34% of the population, not the 4% you put into my mouth.

[Thinker]

Ah. I get your point.

1.) Manufacturers say they are experiencing a shortage of qualified workers.
2.) Manufacturers must therefore really be experiencing a shortage of qualified workers, as they would never lie.
Ah, I get your point.

1.) White Nationalists and like-minded people say that things are doing bad, and that economic "traitors" are ruining America.
2.) White Nationalists and like-minded people must therefore be correct, and things must really be doing bad, because they would never lie.

[Thinker]

Yes. I know that! That is why I specifically cited the example: even foreigners can pay Americans decent wages. Why can't American employers?

Maybe if I show this chart a zillion more time it'll finally sink in:

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/econreport2005/Slide15.jpg

And as for some specific American companies to compete with Samsung, here's some recent news out of Seattle (well, actually Redmond):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/259038_msftcampus10.html
^
"Microsoft Corp. detailed an ambitious plan Thursday to spend $1 billion to expand its Redmond headquarters over the next three years, signaling continued employment growth and causing public officials to become even more urgent in calling for regional transportation improvements.

The plan would boost the size of Microsoft's sprawling campus by one-third -- adding 14 buildings and 3.1 million square feet, with room for a whopping 12,000 people -- in less time than it can take to develop a new version of its flagship Windows PC operating system."

Microsoft jobs pay as well as those Samsung jobs in Texas.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D7143CF930A35756C0A9659C8B63

"The plant accounts for about 10 percent of the company's chip-making capacity and is the only Samsung chip plant outside of South Korea.



This plant produces semiconductors, right? Aren't we laying off American workers who produce semiconductors left and right?
That plant IS an American semiconductor plant employing American workers. It's in Texas, in case you forgot.

[Thinker]

Yes. I know that! That is why I specifically cited the example: even foreigners can pay Americans decent wages. Why can't American employers?
Here's an American semiconductor company that can compete with Samsung . . . It's too bad Fade didn't really pay much attention to my non-looting thread. Otherwise he would have caught this . . .

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/07/25/daily4.html?jst=b_ln_hl

The Business Journal of Phoenix
Monday, July 25, 2005
$3 billion Intel expansion slated for Ariz.
Adam Kress and Diane Arthur
The Business Journal

Intel Corp. announced Monday plans to build a new $3 billion facility in Chandler expected to create at least 1,000 new high-tech manufacturing jobs.

The 300-mm wafer fabrication facility, to be named "Fab 32" will begin production of leading-edge microprocessors in the second half of 2007 on 45 nanometer process technology. Construction is set to begin immediately at Intel's existing Ocotillo campus where the company employs about 9,500 people.

A press conference at the Arizona Science Center is scheduled for 11 a.m. today to formally announce the expansion.

"This investment positions our manufacturing network for future growth to support our platform initiatives and will give us additional supply flexibility across a range of products," said Paul Otellini, Intel chief executive. "For Intel, manufacturing is a key competitive advantage that serves as the underpinning for our business and allows us to provide customers with leading-edge products in high volume. The unmatched scope and scale of our investments in manufacturing help Intel maintain industry leadership and drive innovation."

Earlier this year, the state Legislature and Gov. Janet Napolitano approved a change in the state tax code offering tax cuts to manufacturers and chip makers. Intel was a major pusher of that tax cut, and the company's expansion in the state hinged on that tax relief.

After months of speculation and the passing of the controversial tax measure, Arizona and it's high-tech industry got what it coveted, the massive chip-making facility. It took more than a little work to land the big fish.

Intel pushed the bill hard, and as it turns out, with good reason. It's unlikely Intel would have expanded here without the tax break. The company was also considering Oregon, Ireland and India for the expansion.

Arizona's growing economy, the presence of Arizona State University, existing Intel operations and the new tax cut were factors that pushed the Chandler location over the top.

"The recent passage of the sales factor legislation is already bearing fruit with the exciting announcement of Intel's $3 billion investment in Arizona," said Representative Steve Huffman, House Ways and Means Chairman and the primary sponsor of HB 2139. "We hope that Intel's announcement in combination with our continued efforts to improve the competitive environment in our state will send a message that Arizona is open for business."

When completed, Fab 32 will become Intel's sixth 300-mm wafer facility. The structure will be about 1 million square feet with 184,000 square feet of clean room space. During the construction phase, more than 3,000 skilled trades people will be hired to work on the project.

Intel currently operates four 300-mm fabs that provide the equivalent manufacturing capacity of about eight 200-mm factories. Those factories are located in Oregon, Ireland and New Mexico. The company also has an additional 300-mm fab currently under construction in Arizona (Fab 12) scheduled to begin operations later this year, and one expansion in Ireland (Fab 24-2) scheduled to begin operations in the first quarter of next year.

Manufacturing with 300-mm wafers (about 12 inches in diameter) dramatically increases the ability to produce semiconductors at a lower cost compared with more widely used 200-mm (eight-inch) wafers.

Separately, Intel said it will invest $105 million dollars to convert an existing inactive wafer fab in New Mexico to a component temporary test facility. The project will provide additional test capacity to the company's factory network for the next two years and will result in an additional 300 jobs at the New Mexico site during that period.

Intel, the world's largest chip maker, also is a leading manufacturer of computer, networking and communications products.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Google is getting in on the action in Arizona, too . . .

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/1012google13-ON.html

Google to add 600 jobs at engineering facility in Valley
Jonathan Higuera
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 12, 2005 12:52 PM

Google, the Internet search engine that has revolutionized the way people get information, is expanding its operations into the Valley, with an engineering facility expected to create 600 or more jobs.

Gov. Janet Napolitano and Google officials announced the move Wednesday at the state capitol. The type of jobs will range from software development to engineering to tech support. Google officials said they were drawn here by the area's workforce, educational institutions and quality of life.

"This is part of our worldwide strategy to form offices where there are great engineers," said Douglas Merrill, Google's senior director of information systems.

The company said it is still deciding where its permanent site will be but it has temporarily opened a downtown Phoenix office to assist in recruiting and organizing for the permanent site.

They have already begun recruiting and posting job information on the company's Web site, www.google.com/jobs.

[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

More on a google hiring frenzy in Silicon Valley:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05327/611384.stm
^
"In the 15 months since Google went public, the Mountain View, Calif., company has galvanized the technology world with its innovative Internet search technology, its rapidly broadening business plan, and its soaring stock price. In the office parks of Silicon Valley, Google also has helped fuel something else -- a hiring frenzy reminiscent of the dot-com boom.

To accomplish its current pace of hiring about 10 new employees a day, Google has assembled a formidable hiring machine. Its recruitment department includes as many as 300 free-lance recruiters who are helping it to identify who's who in software engineering, according to three people involved in the effort.

. . .

Google, which saw its revenue increase more than sixfold to $3.2 billion between 2002 and 2004, is helping lead the latest charge. Its hiring drive began not long after its initial public offering in August 2004. At that time, the company had about 2,600 employees, a fraction of Microsoft's 60,000 employees and Hewlett-Packard Co.'s 150,000. Google grew to more than 3,000 by year end, to nearly 3,500 by March 31, and to just over 4,100 by June 30. As of Sept. 30, the company had 4,989 full-time employees, 87 percent more than when it went public."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

More semiconductor employment in Virginia by an American company . . .

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2005/10/31/daily46.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Washington Business Journal
Friday, November 4, 2005
Micron expansion pumps 860 jobs, $1.2 billion into Manassas
Joe Coombs
Staff Reporter

Microchip manufacturer Micron Technology will invest $1.2 billion in its Manassas plant and bring 860 jobs to the city, more than doubling the plant's current employment.

The company has been upgrading the plant on Godwin Drive for the past year to produce a new line of its 300mm flash memory chips, according to an announcement Friday by Gov. Mark Warner.

Analysts say the Boise, Idaho-based company (NYSE: MU) has seen a surge in demand in recent months for its microchips used in MP3 players and cell phones with cameras, but company officials didn't indicate Friday that the Manassas plant would be used for those particular products.

The 860 new jobs -- added to about 800 people already at the plant -- will run "across the board" and include many high-tech engineering and manufacturing positions, says spokesman Todd House.

When Micron bought the plant from a division of Toshiba in 2002, it laid off 560 of its 1,200 workers. At the time, Micron was in the midst of a massive downsizing effort and cut 10 percent of its worldwide work force.

But demand has clearly bounced back for Micron's products. Warner also approved a $2 million grant from the Governor's Opportunity Fund to support Manassas' work force development efforts to train workers for Micron's plant.

"Micron's decision to locate a 300mm facility in Manassas is a reflection of our belief that the commonwealth of Virginia provides the right environment for business," says Steve Appleton, Micron's chairman, president and CEO, in a prepared statement. "Virginia's commitment to pro-business tax policies and an educated work force are key factors in helping Micron."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micron is also adding lots of people in the Boise area . . .

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060106/NEWS0202/601060325/1029/NEWS02

Micron says it will fill 900 high-wage jobs
Company credits product diversification for its growth
Melissa McGrath
The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 01-06-2006

Micron Technology Inc., Idaho's largest private employer, said Thursday it will hire people to fill about 900 high-paying jobs at its Boise facility.

Economists said it's good news for the local economy and local high-tech workers looking for jobs.

"This is really due to the success we're having due to our diversification efforts," Micron spokesman Dan Francisco said Thursday. In recent years, Micron has moved away from producing memory chips for personal computers and started making newer-generation flash memory chips and image sensors for handheld electronic devices and cell phones.

In the past, Micron's earnings were at the mercy of the fluctuating prices for its primary product DRAM, or dynamic random access memory. Micron's business has stabilized as it added new products.

Micron's joint venture with Intel Corp., known as IM Flash Technologies LLC, and normal attrition at the company also have created job openings, he said.

Francisco could not say how many of the 900 positions are new jobs and how many are existing positions that need to be filled.

Micron's openings are a mix of positions in manufacturing, engineering, accounting, finance and information technology.

Generally, an entry-level technician position starts at about $16 an hour, Francisco said. An engineer straight out of college could earn about $60,000 a year. An engineer with several years experience in the semiconductor industry could earn around $100,000 a year or more, he said. Salaries vary depending on an applicant's experience and skill level, Francisco said.

"These jobs are great," said John Panter, the southwest Idaho regional economist with the state Department of Commerce & Labor. "These are actually living-wage jobs. People can afford health care, own a home, own a car, send their kids to college and have a retirement plan."

Hiring 900 people at Micron also will help the local economy. Those jobs will create about 1,800 additional jobs in retail, construction, health care and other sectors due to what economists call the multiplier effect, he said.

[...]

[Thinker]

Oops, forgot this other Intel one . . .

http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2005/10/24/daily3.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Intel's Rio Rancho operations to grow by 350 jobs
Clay Holtzman
NMBW Staff

Intel Corp. CEO Paul Otellini announced today that his company will add 350 permanent jobs as part of a $650 million upgrade to one of its advanced fabrication facilities located in Rio Rancho.

The upgrades will be made to Intel's Fab 11X to make the facility capable of producing larger wafers for its microprocessors. Already capable of producing 200 millimeter wafers, Fab 11X will now be able to make 300 millimeter wafers, which gives it the ability to place more components on the surface -- equating to more power and efficiency for the company's popular microprocessors.

The hiring, which Intel spokesman Terry McDermott says will start immediately, would bring to about 5,550 the number of workers at Intel's Rio Rancho Fab 11 and Fab 11X facilities.

"Intel is always looking for areas to expand and re-tool our fabs," says McDermott.

Earlier this year, Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) announced it would reopen its Fab 7 facility, also in Rio Rancho, to serve as a test site. That facility will be re-opened at a project cost of about $105 million, adding about 300 temporary jobs.

Otellini made the announcement alongside New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at a Rio Rancho Economic Development Corp. luncheon commemorating 2005 as the 25-year anniversary of Intel's operations in New Mexico.

McDermott says Intel's positive relationships with various groups in New Mexico makes it easier for the Sunnyvale, California-based computer chip giant to continue to expand its operations here.

Fab 11X, opened in October of 2002, is already considered one of the most advanced microprocessor fabrication facilities in the world. The new capability is cutting-edge and follows the industry's path of placing more components on microprocessors to make them as advanced and efficient as possible, says McDermott.

According to the company, Intel's annual New Mexico payroll in 2004 was $302 million and its local purchases of goods and services amounted to $132 million.

[President Camacho]

Here's an American semiconductor company that can compete with Samsung . . . It's too bad Fade didn't really pay much attention to my non-looting thread. Otherwise he would have caught this . . .

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/07/25/daily4.html?jst=b_ln_hl

The Business Journal of Phoenix
Monday, July 25, 2005
$3 billion Intel expansion slated for Ariz.
Adam Kress and Diane Arthur
The Business Journal
Yeah, and probably 80% of the employees will be Indian and Asian engineers, not "Americans". :rolleyes: Hence, insourcing.

[A. Radek]

Yeah, and probably 80% of the employees will be Indian and Asian engineers, not "Americans". :rolleyes: Hence, insourcing.

Semiconductor plants are even more notorious than 'Defense' plants in mass layoffs every year, causing people to change careers quite frequently, so there is a constant 'shortage' of skilled people when the market turns upward, as few people will quit just to go back for a job that frequently rarely lasts for 3 to 5 months most times. Motorola and the cell phone industry is particularly prone to this. It is particularly bad for engineers, in virtually all fields. These companies really think people will spends years and 10's of thousands of dollars educating themselves for temp agency and part time 'contract' careers requiring high skill levels and education, and also the expense of relocating all over the country numerous times, to boot. Apparently these people should sit around and wait for these idiots to fire up, and then drop everything to return to work for them, only to get laid off yet again. LOL
Yeah, and probably 80% of the employees will be Indian and Asian engineers, not "Americans". :rolleyes: Hence,

Very true. I worked in lasers and optics, and at the companies I worked for, green cards made up a minimum of over 50% of the work force, and at one Korean place, there were only whites in the office staff and in the plant, 6 whites out of over a hundred employees, and less than 2 or three out of ten spoke English well enough to communicate with.

[Thinker]

Yeah, and probably 80% of the employees will be Indian and Asian engineers, not "Americans". :rolleyes: Hence, insourcing.
If that is true, then it would also be true of Fade's supposedly-exemplary Samsung operation in Texas.

Would you prefer they built that microchip plant in India or China instead?

Incidentally, you might want to read this thread on SF, paying particular attention to what AlphaNumericus and bombadillo have to say:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=270571

Oh yeah, one other note - last October I had an interview for a 6-month project position at Microsoft. The department I had an interview in (local.live.com (http://local.live.com/)) was practically all-White.

Surprised?

[Kodos]

Semiconductor plants are even more notorious than 'Defense' plants in mass layoffs every year, causing people to change careers quite frequently, so there is a constant 'shortage' of skilled people when the market turns upward, as few people will quit just to go back for a job that frequently rarely lasts for 3 to 5 months most times. Motorola and the cell phone industry is particularly prone to this. It is particularly bad for engineers, in virtually all fields. These companies really think people will spends years and 10's of thousands of dollars educating themselves for temp agency and part time 'contract' careers requiring high skill levels and education, and also the expense of relocating all over the country numerous times, to boot. Apparently these people should sit around and wait for these idiots to fire up, and then drop everything to return to work for them, only to get laid off yet again. LOL

What really sucks is it was in a "boom" mode when I got into school and a depression when I got out...

[Dan Dare]

Yeah, and probably 80% of the employees will be Indian and Asian engineers, not "Americans". :rolleyes: Hence, insourcing.

There is no "probably" about it.

An on-site visit to any major company in the tech field will confirm it's the current reality.

[Kodos]

Yes insourcing is a much bigger issue then outsourcing, I think one thing that prompts such a preference is the H1-B visa prettymuch makes the indians and asians indentured servants to their employers until it expires... and slave labor is preferred over free labor.

[A. Radek]

Yes insourcing is a much bigger issue then outsourcing, I think one thing that prompts such a preference is the H1-B visa prettymuch makes the indians and asians indentured servants to their employers until it expires... and slave labor is preferred over free labor.

My neighbors in the efficiency apartment above me when I lived in Santa Clara were 4 Indian engineers. Yes, they shared a one room apartment, and slept in shifts. I made more than twice what they were being paid. They were on 'salary', so they were routinely working 90 to 110 hours a week. They couldn't quit, because then they would lose their visas and have to pay the company some $8,000 for 'moving and travel expenses if they quit before their contract was up, and then pay their own way back to India. Extremely tough to do on what they were making. When I say twice what they were being paid, I mean all four of them combined.

[Kodos]

I think thats the heart of the issue... the outsourcing thing is mostly hype its the H1-B( and generally crappy economic conditions haven't been helping).

[Thinker]

I have already, thoroughly, read all your posts in this thread. You have no valid reason to repeat yourself ad nauseum (which doesn't win you any points in this debate).

What utter bullcrap. You've not only not read what I've posted (or at least not paid attention), you refuse to read my sources.


You could, however, start addressing the points actually made by Paul Craig Roberts in his article as opposed to all the straw topics you have since littered this thread with which have nothing to do with the subject.

I have spent this entire thread addressing what Roberts wrote. All he does is complain about job losses in manufacturing and elsewhere, when he really doesn't understand what's going on. If he (and you) would read and pay close attention to this article here (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1) he would have a more complete understand of what's going on with American manufacturing. All the points in that article can be backed up with plenty of data as well as abundant anecdotal infro, I might add.


Okay. You agree that American manufacturers have laid off millions of workers. I believe this was the point Paul Craig Roberts was making; that the job profile of American citizens is changing and becoming more service based.

What is wrong with an economy becoming more service-based?

At one point, the American economy was mostly agricultural based. Then it started to become more industrial based. There was nothing "bad" about it becoming less agricultural based and more industrial based. Now it is becoming less industrial based and more service based. There is also nothing "bad" about this either, it is a natural progression that happens to all advanced economies, including your much-admired Japan and Korea.


If you didn't dispute his findings, then why didn't you just acknowledge this at the outset of the thread? Why have you maligned "VDARE analysts" if you happen to agree with what they are saying? Why didn't you say: Fade, I am glad you posted this article for the gallery, as what Paul Craig Roberts is saying is true and I agree.

I am accusing him of lacking understanding of context, and lack of understanding of what's going on in American manufacturing. All he does is complain that manufacturing jobs are being lost. If he (and you) would read this article here (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1), he and you would have a more complete understanding of what's going on. And once you thought about the observations in that article, you would come to realize this is a good thing, overall. But you have to read the article first - and pay attention to it, too.


This is false. I did not accuse you of denying that American manufacturers were laying off their workers. I did point out though that you have dishonestly attempted to shift the nature of this discussion to the topic of manufacturing output which was not addressed in the initial article.

This is your fatal flaw: You cannot talk about manufacturing employment in isolation without also taking into account manufacturing output. The purpose of having manufacturing employees, after all, is to produce output. If fewer employees are producing MORE output, that means nothing less than they are getting BETTER at what they do. And this is exactly what's happening with US manufacturing. Once again, read this to understand. (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1)

You accuse me of trying to "shift" discussion from employment to output, but that is because you cannot seperate the two. It is pointless to discuss why employment in manufacturing is rising or declining without taking into account what is happening regarding manufacturing output.


You later pointed out that American manufacturers have been laying off workers for decades irrespective of whether the economy was in recession or not. Recession thus cannot be the driving cause of such layoffs. Paul Craig Roberts has not said that businesses do not lay off workers in recessions. He has claimed outsourcing, free trade, and offshoring is driving these jobs losses. Do you dispute that? Do you deny that employers are shipping production overseas to take advantage of cheap third world labor? You seemed to acknowledge this fact towards the end of your own post.

Last night I made a post correcting (partially) a claim I made about manufacturing jobs declining "for decades." Here it is:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45223&postcount=67
^
As you can see from the chart in that post, manufacturing jobs do decline during recessions. There was a recession during the early 90's - and manufacturing jobs declined during that period. There was also a deep recession during the early 80's, and manufacturing jobs declined then, too. There were about 3 recessions during the 70's, and manufacturing jobs declined then, too. Last, there was a recession during the early 00's, and, lo and behold, manufacturing jobs declined then, too.

The manufacturing job decline in this latest recession was steeper than in other recessions, but the productivity improvements I spoke of earlier would account for some of that. In addition, some offshoring will account for some other manufacturing job losses. I claim that the offshoring of those items which has been offshored is, on the whole, beneficial since it results in more affordable products.


You are being dishonest here, Thinker. Paul Craig Roberts has documented the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs in the past several years; job losses that are not being driven by economic recession as you acknowledge (i.e., you agree we are not in a recession today). This has coincided with the shift towards a service based economy which, again, has been going on for decades. Now answer my question. Is Roberts really being unrealistic or are you being dishonest? Are you suggesting here that it is "realistic" that we can expect these jobs to return to the United States or is Roberts absolutely right for pointing out that it is "unrealistic" they will be coming back?

See above reply.

Some of those manufacturing job losses might come back, a majority probably won't. This isn't neccessarily bad, for the same reason that farm job losses weren't neccessarily bad.

Here's another article you probably won't read - or if you do, you'll simply scoff at it. Your loss if you do:
The Great Jobs Switch: The fall in manufacturing employment in developed economies is a sign of economic progress, not decline. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4458528)


That wouldn't make much sense. Do I have to remind you that you pointed out yourself in your previous post that the job losses in manufacturing have been accumulating irrespective of whether or not the economy is in recession?

See response two replies above, regarding this post here. (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45223&postcount=67) I have proven that manufacturers shed jobs during recessions.


"The US manufacturing sector has been slowly and steadily losing jobs for decades, whether in a recession or not."
—Thinker

Once again, I made a partial correction of that in this post here. (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45223&postcount=67)


Japan refutes everything you are saying. Japan is a homogeneous nation-state with a rich culture. The Japanese forsake massive third world immigration in favor research and development into robotics (a field in which they lead the world). The Japanese live longer lives than Americans. They own far more consumer electronics and lead the world in many areas of advanced technology and manufacturing. The Japanese have captured an enormous share of the American automobile market not vice versa. They protect their own market but still make great quality cars. There is far less income inequality in Japan; the social product of Japan is more evenly distributed. Japan is not making any so-called "natural transition" to a service based economy. They enjoy a huge trade surplus which is why they are snapping up American assets left and right. The Japanese don't bully other nations and play global police. The Japanese are collectivists and do not deny the existence of racial differences.

1. Americans invest heavily into robotics, too. I'd be happy to give you some links to American robotics companies, if you'd like.
2. I doubt your claim about the Japanese owning more consumer electronics, but even if they do . . . so what? Americans own more and bigger cars, they own more RV's, they have bigger houses, and a ton of other things. Is ownership rates of conusmer electronics supposed to be some holy grail measure of an advanced society?? LOL!!!
3. You are grossly, fantastically, hilariously wrong about Japan not making a transition to a service-based economy. You are so wrong about that, it isn't funny. Here ya go:

Japan (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1.3%
industry: 25.3%
services: 73.5%

United States (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1%
industry: 20.7%
services: 78.3%

There is not much difference between the two nations. That America is about 5% more service-oriented and about 5% less industry-oriented is a sign that we're more advanced than them, not less. For a partial explanation of why this is so, read this here. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4458528)


This is false. The food we consume in America is overwhelmingly grown in the United States. The decline in agricultural employment is due to advances in productivity, that is, better technology and consolidation of farms. This is not the case in the manufacturing sector. The manufactured goods we consume are increasingly being produced abroad, not in America, because of the exploitation of cheap third world labor. It's a false analogy because productivity is not driving lay offs in the manufacturing sector. The decline in employment in manufacturing is driven by a different set of causal factors.

*sigh*

Much (not all) of the decline in manufacturing employment is due to increases in productivity. You must read this to understand. (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=31879&postcount=1) Also, reading this will add further understanding. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4458528) As noted above, there are other reasons as well: Recessions will kill some jobs, and some offshoring will do the same. I claim that the offshoring is acceptible if it results in more affordable goods. We can get TV's for $200 instead of $500.


Exactly. You cannot compare agriculture to manufacturing. They are essentially different.

No, they are not fundamentally different. The only reason why there is still so much agriculture in the US is because we have soooo much suitable agricultural land. There is no point in moving it all elsewhere. If the US did not have sooo much suitable agricultural land, then US agriculture would be resembling US manufacturing even more, and most of our food would be grown overseas.


The lay offs in the manufacturing sector are not being driven by productivity changes. We don't need hordes of Negroes to pick cotton because we have better technology. Furthermore, American agriculture is heavily protected and subsidized. For example, Americans pay far more than the market price for milk and sugar.

A good reason to end the subsidies. Why pay more for milk and sugar than we should?


American farmers are protected from foreign competition by all sorts of schemes like, say, cotton producers in Mississippi and Alabama. There are also regulatory agencies like the FDA that ensure we are consuming only quality food.

Fortunately, this is becoming increasingly less so, thanks to the WTO. Increasing amounts of our cotton and sugar are coming from Brazil, for example.


I see. You are suggesting here that agriculture and manufacturing are essentially different, as you say, food cannot be grown anywhere in all conditions. But this is all besides the point.

No, it is not besides the point, you're just trying to avoid the (obvious) conclusion that the main reason why agriculture is still so big in America is simply because we have an abundance of agricultural land. If that weren't so, then most of our food we eat would now be grown overseas.


The fact of the matter is that productivity is not driving job losses in the manufacturing sector. The shift from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy, however, can be attributed to productivity changes, to better technology and consolidation.

Repeating your claims ad nauseum will not make them true. See several responses above.


If this was an inexorable process, then the pattern would repeat itself in all nations. That is not the case, as any rational observer can clearly see. Japan hasn't developed such a service economy.

Once again, utter and complete hilarity. Just because it's so much fun, I'll repeat the data:

Japan (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ja.html)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1.3%
industry: 25.3%
services: 73.5%

United States (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 1%
industry: 20.7%
services: 78.3%

There is not much difference between the two nations. That America is about 5% more service-oriented and about 5% less industry-oriented is a sign that we're more advanced than them, not less. For a partial explanation of why this is so, read this here. (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4458528)


Why is that?

The trade surplus in American agriculture is starting to disappear because we are starting to import more and more wine from Australia, cheese from France, sugar from Brazil, asparagus from Peru, etc etc. Some of this has to do with trade agreements, some is just shifting consumer tastes.


This doesn't falsify anything I said. On the contrary, we are importing more food because of many of the trade agreements we have entered into.

See response above.


Okay. We are not in a recession. We are still shedding manufacturing jobs left and right, ergo, a recession cannot be driving such job losses right now.

1. If you understood anything about busines cycles (which you clearly don't), you'd understand that the jobs lost in a recession don't automatically re-appear overnight. It usually takes years of an expansion to recover those jobs. Some industries can recover lost jobs quicker than others. Improved productivity will mean that, in some other industries, not all of the jobs will be recovered. Employment might only recover somewhat while output will go way up.
2. A close examination of very recent manufacturing job numbers will show you that the losses in manufacturing jobs has stabilized. Here is a chart of manufacturing jobs between 1/2000 and 1/2006:
http://www.economagic.com/gif/g710112037074204837364378531392216.gif
^
In case that image doesn't show, a link with the same info is here:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/blsce/ces3000000001+2000+2006+0+0+0+290+545++0

As you can see, manufacturing jobs have been fairly stable since about 2004.


"During an extremely healthy recovery, you *might* get a small gain (for example, I think during the Clinton years, manufacturing jobs increased very slightly). But all of that is just "noise" in the larger trend."
—Thinker

Once again, a partial self-correction:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45223&postcount=67


When did Ford build this plant? Better yet, why did Ford build this plant in Northern Mexico as opposed to the United States? Do you agree, Thinker, that Ford is simply exploiting cheap Mexican labor and lack of environmental regulations?

I'm not sure when Ford built that plant - in the 70's or 80's I think. I could be wrong.

Ford sells cars in Mexico. Why can they not also build cars in Mexico?


Okay. I will ask the gallery to please take note of the fact that Thinker has been reduced to repeating points ad nauseum that have never been in dispute in the course of this discussion.

You have about a dozen ad nauseum responses in this thread. Look in the mirror before you accuse me of something.



You suggested in your previous post that such job losses were primarily due to the recession and productivity improvement. Have you already forgotten your dishonest analogy to American agriculture? If these job losses are primarily attributable to outsourcing, offshoring producting, and free trade, then why don't you simply come flat out and say that Paul Craig Roberts is right?

An ad nauseum response. I've addressed this by now several times above.


Yes. Let's do that. Let's start with the United States and Japan. I highly recommend Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1843310279/102-9245472-9874520?v=glance&n=283155).

And, as noted two times above, Japan is at about the same level of economic development as the US. Slightly behind, actually.


1.) India used to be one of the most industrialized nations in the world. India was deindustrialized under British rule during the 18th and 19th centuries and was an agricultural backwater under laissez-faire free trade.

And now, they are getting rich again due to laissez-faire free trade.


2.) Brazil is a backwater because has more blacks than any other country in the world save Nigeria. Poor human capital.

Brazil, too, has been making great strides of late, thanks to increasingly free trade.

[Dan Dare]

I think thats the heart of the issue... the outsourcing thing is mostly hype its the H1-B( and generally crappy economic conditions haven't been helping).

It's not just the H1B scandal which mainly accrues to the benefit of Cisco, Intel, M$oft, Sun, HP and the rest, the newest scam is the L1/L2 intracompany transfer visa loophole.

The way it works is that Indian jobshops like Tata Consultancy and Wipro Infosys create subsidiaries in the US that are then permitted to bring in employees from India who are then contracted out to US employers.

The advantage for US employers with this particular wangle is that they have no responsibility for the foreign contractor which is a major benefit compared to the H1B.

Of course the US Immigation Service is completely reliant on the goodfaith declarations of Tata and Wipro that their L1/L2 intracompany transferees have ever even worked for their Indian operations, and that their qualifications are bona-fide.

[Olin D. Johnston]

Dan is right, L-1/L-2 visas are the new visa of choice for abuse. Unlike the H-1B's, there are no numerical limitations of L-1/L-2 visas.

The number H-1B visas that could be issued during any fiscal year (October 1st to September 30th of the following year) is limited to 65,000

[Thinker]

The Japanese also have access to cheap Japanese electronics. In fact, Japan has a thriving consumer electronics industry.

The majority of those cheap Japanese electronics are made in China, even the ones sold in Japan. I've had Japanese people on some of my other internet hangouts point this out. If you don't believe me, ask some Japanese people yourself.

As one indicator of this, the Japanese themselves are starting to wonder if Japanese investment in China is starting to "hollow out" their own industry. An article from a few years ago:
http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/china/02110801.html

In fact, Americans are only the 5th-largest foreign investor in China (as of 2004) behind both the Japanese and Koreans:
http://www.uschina.org/statistics/2005foreigninvestment.html
^
Table 2: Origins of FDI, 2004
Origin - Amount Invested (US$)
Hong Kong - $19.00 billion
British Virgin Islands - $6.73 billion
South Korea - $6.25 billion
Japan - $5.45 billion
United States - $3.94 billion
Taiwan - $3.18 billion
Cayman Islands - $2.04 billion
Singapore - $2.01 billion
Western Samoa - $1.13 billion
Germany - $1.06 billion

Even if we regard that British Virgin Islands as a sneaky way of Americans getting in there (but that's likely as much British investment as American), it's still behind the folks in Hong Kong.

As you can see, the Japanese *are* very big investors in China. Much of that is industrial investments by Japanese multinationals. Same with the Koreans.

At any rate, since you seem so obsessed with consumer electronics, and regard all those made-in-China-by-Japanese-companies stereos on the shelves of Wal-Mart as some portent of doom, did it ever occur to you that there are so many Japanese consumer electronics makers and few American ones left simply because the Japanese happen to be good at making consumer electronics? Alternatively, did you ever notice that there are few, if any, Japanese equivalents of Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, McDonalds and Burget King in the US? On the other hand, you can find many of those if you go to Japan. I could swear we had this discussion once back in MSF (but maybe it was with someone else).

- The reason why you see so many Japanese consumer electronics on the shelves of US stores (and Europe and Canada and Germany and Upper Slobovia . . .) is because, for whatever reason, the Japanese are good at making consumer electronics.

- The reason why you see so many American retail stores on the streets of Tokyo (and Berlin and London and Toronto and Slobovia City . . .) is because, for whatever reason, Americans are good at retailing.

This is why globalism is good: Everybody gets a chance to buy the best consumer electronics in the world, and they get the chance to shop at the best retail stores in the world.


Another free traitor prophecy.

Ah, yes, the neofacist dictum that only conservatives can be patriotic.


We are still waiting for the "new economy" to materialize. What happened to all those "knowledge jobs" that were supposed to replace our manufacturing base back in the 1990s? Oh yeah. We are outsourcing those jobs too. I guess that sucks for all the IT professionals who invested so much of their money in education thanks to bullshit sold to them by the likes of Thomas Friedman and James Glassman. Glassman is a big free traitor and critic of Lou Dobbs. Do you happen to have his Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609806998/102-9245472-9874520?v=glance&n=283155) by chance, Thinker? It sounds like it would interest you.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0609806998.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Wait. I forgot to mention that it was published in 2000. :p

A contradictory response.

You yourself noted in the previous post that America has been an increasingly service-oriented economy. This includes "knowledge jobs." Therefore, America is becoming a more service and knowledge-based economy, just as your book said.


You posted both these graphs in the other thread. The struck me as totally bogus so I went back and examined a year's worth of payroll data and illustrated that they were utterly false.

You did no such thing.

The source for those graphs are the Department of Labor (which contains the Bureau of Labor Statistics). This is the same source Paul Roberts uses (there *is* no other source, actually). He just puts his own spin on it and says stuff like, 'Construction jobs go to Hispanics, so any rise in construction jobs really goes to non-Americans.'


Yes. IN AGRICULTURE, NOT MANUFACTURING.

Agriculture has reduced its American labor needs because of increased productivity. Also we *do* import more food than we used to.

Manufacturing has reduced its American labor needs, in part, because of increased productivity. Output has gone up, as I've proven many times now, while employment has gone down, especially of late. When you produce MORE using FEWER PEOPLE, that means that PRODUCTIVITY HAS INCREASED. In fact, that's the very definition of increased productivity.


This is false. You have already pointed out above that our trade surplus in agricultural products is in decline. And I pointed out this is in large part because of international free trade agreements such as NAFTA.

I addressed this in the post above.


There HAS NOT been a comparable loss of manufacturing jobs in Japan, however. Thus, Thinker's analogy fails.

OMG . . . you really have no friggin clue whatsoever what you are talking about . . . absolutely, positively none whatsoever . . .

Source #1:
http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/02/where_are_the_m.php
^
"Some claim that jobs are going overseas. So where are manufacturing jobs growing? China, might be a knee jerk reaction. But it would be wrong. Since mid-2000, manufacturing employment in mainland China has fallen by 11%. Then what about our NAFTA partners? Nope. Both Mexican and Canadian factory employment have fallen since 2000, as has manufacturing employment in Japan, Germany , the UK, France, South Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Indonesia, Ireland, and Poland.

In fact, of the top 28 manufacturing countries in the world (which account for 90 percent of global manufacturing output), just 5 have seen increases in manufacturing employment over the last 5 years: Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Thailand, and Turkey."

Source #2:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040321.html
^
"Manufacturing jobs declined in all three countries, and most others, but industrial job losses were much greater in Japan and Germany. From 1990 to 1995, manufacturing jobs fell 1.6 percent a year in Japan and 4.2 percent a year in Germany, but only 0.6 percent in the United States. From 1995 to 2000, manufacturing jobs fell by 1.9 percent a year in Japan, by 0.8 percent in Germany but only 0.1 percent in the United States."

Source #3:
http://www.automationworld.com/cds_search.html?rec_id=336&eclip=yes
^
"Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 11 percent, Miklovic noted. But at the same time, Japan’s manufacturing employment base has dropped by 16 percent . . . "

I could find you many more sources as well. As noted in my reply above, Japan's economy has been increasingly a services-oriented one. This steep loss of their manufacturing jobs is just one indicator of that.


This is false. It is not a net gain. Our huge trade deficit puts downward pressure on our currency. Such foreign manufactured products will become dramatically more expensive as the value of the dollar falls of a cliff.

And our exports will become cheaper for foreigners to buy, encouraging them to buy them, and thus helping to balance out the rising prices of imports in our balance-of-trade.


Thinker is peddling the myth here that protectionism equals higher prices. This is false. I pointed out the example of Japan and South Korea in my previous post. The Japanese and South Koreans have cutting edge consumer electronics industries and own far more consumer electronic goods than Americans do.

See first reply in this post.

Incidentally, the US does have a thriving electronics industry - Dell, Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Texas Instruments, etc. You complain that our TV's and stereos aren't made by American companies, but chances are, your computer and microchips are.


This doesn't follow. If that were the case, then our trade surplus in agricultural products would not be decreasing.

I addressed this in my previous reply. Our trade surplus in agricultural products is decreasing in part because of increased imports due to trade agreements, and in part because of shifting consumer tastes. The fact that we still have vast amounts of suitable farmland simply means that many large-scale commodity items such as wheat and corn will always be produced in the US in immense quantities and we are unlikely to ever be net importers of those. However, because those are commodity items means that their value is low even though quantities are immense. The things we are increasingly importing - wine from Australia, cheese from France, asparagus from Peru - tend to be much higher-value-added agricultural products and are therefore much more expensive, pound-for-pound.

In other words, the dollar value of our agricultural trade surplus is shrinking, but if you counted it by weight or volume, we would still have a vast surplus. That's the only effect our vast amounts of agricultural land creates.


Let me remind the gallery of your previous post:

"Our quality of life will be enhanced as more and more people do what they want to do - become accountants or lawyers or nurses or real estate agents or baristas - rather than be stuck with tedious, physical and menial factory work."
—Thinker

Does the gallery see the cheap dishonest sleight of hand here? Thinker first asserts that these people are leaving their manufacturing jobs for better jobs. I responded and pointed out that this wasn't happening at all; that these people were being laid off. I then asked him what these laid off employees have to say about losing their jobs, as Thinker claims they are perfectly fine, wonderful in fact, and that they are moving on to greener pastures. Thinker replies, not by addressing my question, but asking what employers (that is, the people who fired these employees) are saying.

Why are employers complaining about the shortages of "skilled workers"? Because they are liars. That's why. Because they don't want want to pay first world labor first world wages. Because free traitors want to import hordes of foreigners from abroad to drive down wages, to immiserate their fellow citizens, and exploit third world peons in order to enrich themselves.

My response to this is simple: If workers who had been laid off from their factory jobs were desperate to go back to them, then why are employers having such a hard time getting them to come back?

The claim that employers are holding back on hiring American citizens because they want to hire cheaper foreigners instead is demonstrably laughable if you read some of the links I provided on the manufacturing worker shortage:
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS01/602020365
^
"In addition to satisfying industry demand for skilled workers, the manufacturing center is also needed to draw young people to opportunities in manufacturing. "We have to make young people understand that manufacturing is a high-tech, high-skilled career," Hughes said, noting that some technicians at Mazak earn more than $100,000 a year. "We have to have a facility that can attract students.""

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/robotics/2005-11-13-technical-worker-shortage_x.htm
^
""Naturally I'm going to go with the best of the offers; I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen yet," said Vandehey, who expects a starting salary of around $40,000. That's good money at an age when many from his 2003 high school graduating class are only partially through a four-year college or a military hitch.
...

James Mack of Sumter, S.C., has done both. The 48-year-old father of two, married for 27 years, has an associate degree in occupational technology and is 12 classes away from a bachelor's degree. He's currently not in school, but when he goes back, Mack intends to complete his degree in the human resources field.

His $20-an-hour job, which includes health coverage and a 401(k) retirement plan, requires Mack to be able to repair everything at an Eaton factory that makes industrial-size electrical panel boards and switchboards. "

Those are the kinds of jobs that manufacturers are reporting shortages of. An entry-level job paying $40K/year or $20/hour, or an experienced person making $100K/year is hardly like a manufacturer trying to get semi-skilled Mexicans or Vietnamese for $10/hour.


Impressive reasoning Thinker.

1.) Laid off employees are leaving their manufacturing jobs to find existential meaning working at Walmart and McDonald's.
2.) I ask you what these people whom you claim are doing just fine have to say.
3.) You respond by pointing out that the employers who laid them off are saying that there are shortages of skilled workers.
4.) Employers say such shortages exist, ergo, its true, ergo these employees prefer to work in Walmart as opposed to factories!

How long is it going to take you to realize that the people who post here aren't dumb enough to fall for your cheap rhetorical tricks which you as cover for you inability to make substantial critical points?

See reply above. Entry-level skilled manufacturing jobs paying $40K/year are going begging. This would indicate that people aren't interested in doing these kinds of jobs much anymore, given that that's decent pay for an entry-level job, which should otherwise be a good incentive to get people to go into these fields.

On a side note, one other indicator of this problem would be the steady increases in college enrollments the past decade or two. Since more and more people are going to college, that would indicate that fewer and fewer people want to do industrial and other jobs which *don't* require a college degree. That's probably part of the reason for the shortage.


That your free traitor snake oil isn't selling here. That South Korea and Japan refute what you are saying.

Incidentally, South Korea has been losing manufacturing jobs, too. See my response to your claim that Japan hasn't been losing manufacturing jobs above. South Korea is in the same boat.


Are you saying that the South Koreans and Japanese can afford cheap electronics because they can buy Chinese imports?

Yes.


Let's see your evidence.

For primary evidence, you'll have to ask some people living in Japan. I have had people in Japan tell me this on my other internet hangouts. Otherwise I'll provide some secondary, somewhat anecdotal evidence:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/24/business/yen.php
^
"Japan's trade surplus narrowed in October, the government said Thursday, as rising domestic demand spurred imports of electronics and machinery in the world's second-largest economy."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_40/b3802154.htm
^
" Now the Japanese are taking another hard look--and deciding they like what they see. China's low costs are more appealing than ever as Japan Inc. battles to preserve margins, keep its products competitive, and restructure at home. Labor and industrial real estate in China are still a fraction of levels in Japan."

And . . .

--> China's low-cost labor lures Japanese firms (http://www.usatoday.com/money/bcovthu.htm) <-- That's already several years old, and if you did further research you'd find out that the trend has accellerated. As noted at the top of this post, Japan is one of the largest foreign investors in China. You can bet that electronics firms are a big part of that, and that much of the product produced there is exported to Japan.


No problem.

http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=dji-00110820060119&feed=dji&date=20060119

"Ford has a total of 18 North American assembly plants, including two in Mexico."

Oh gee, two instead of one . . .

Hmm, let's see . . . Out of 18 Ford plants, 2 - 11% - are located in Mexico.

The US has about 300 million people, Canada has about 32 million, and Mexico has about 109 million - that totals 441 million people.

Mexico's population of 109 million is 24.7% of the North American population. So, if anything, Ford's operations in Mexico under-represent them in proportion to their population. I suppose if you gage them by purchasing power, the 11% is just about right.

And as noted in previous reply, Mexicans buy Fords, too. So why can't Ford build a plant in Mexico? It should be noted that some of the output of US and Canadian auto plants goes to Mexico.


America also engaged in extensive protectionism during the nineteenth century. The Japanese took note of this and followed suit. If the Japanese and South Koreans had forsaken industrial development in favor of free trade s you have had them do, then both of these countries would still be pursuing their 'comparative advantage' as impoverished agricultural nations, as would the United States.

Japan and South Korea could never have a comparative advantage in agriculture because they have relatively little farmland.

Otherwise, your statements about 'comparative advantage' indicates you have no idea what a 'comparative advantage' is. A comparative advantage does not autotmatically equate to specializing in agriculture, which is what you seem to imply. A comparative advantage might have nothing to do with agriculture at all.


The United States didn't become an industrial colossus by engaging in free trade. America also pursued industrial development.

This was non-responsive. What does this response have to do with comparing America to South Korea?


This is nonresponsive. The economic position of the U.S. has eroded because of its trade policies, specifically, the quid pro quos given to Germany and Japan in exchange for their support in the Cold War.

No, it is this response of yours which is non-responsive.

Do you, or do you not, dispute my contention that as other nations become developed, it is inevitable that some of them catch up to the US?

As an illustration, if there was only 1 developed nation in a world of 100 nations, that one developed nation would be far above the others in nearly every economic measure. But then as 2, then 10, then 30, and then 60 of those other 99 nations start to develop, it is inevitable that some of those 60 will start to challenge the first developed nation in various economic measures.

Do you actually dispute this?


Britain was the most protected economy on earth for centuries.

Yes.


Britain became a great power through industrial development, as Ha-Joon Chang explains, and only later switched over to 'free trade' to 'kick down the ladder' once it was in a position of economic strength just like America. Furthermore, free trade ruined the British Empire, as Britain was knocked off its pedestal by protectionist America and Germany. Correlli Barnett describes this process in detail in his book The Collapse of British Power (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0391034391/102-9245472-9874520?v=glance&n=283155)

It was when Britain switched over to relatively free trade in the mid-19th century that their industrial might really shifted into high gear. The only reason it declined (relatively speaking) was because America caught up, and with a much larger population it was inevitable that America catch up and surpass Britain in economic might.


Repeating yourself ad nauseum isn't an argument. Roberts was referring to offshoring.

I find it neccessary to repeat myself ad nauseum because you consistently fail to understand that I was talking about American output, which occurs only in factories on American soil, not on foreign soil. This crucial point keeps escaping you.


You have been beating the same straw man through several pages of this thread now. No one claimed that manufacturing output was in decline.

Roberts claimed that manufacturing output in America was becoming "less and less." The term "less and less" means a decline. Thefore, Roberts was claiming that American manufacturing output was declining - which is false.


This is becoming pathetic. Just admit you misinterpreted the passage and concede the point. Roberts was referring to American corporations offshoring production.

It is your spectacular avoidance of the central point which is becoming pathetic: I was talking about American output, which occurs only in factories on American soil, not on foreign soil.


No. It is true. Such caps were established in the 1980s during the Reagan administration.

Those quotas were voluntary, temporary, and are since gone. Reagan decided not to extend the quotas in 1985. (source (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_v21/ai_3713674))

[Fade the Butcher]

Alright. Before I begin composing my response (never in my life have I seen more missed points, as Potyondi would say), I want to ask the gallery a question. Is there a single person who has browsed this thread who agrees with Thinker that outsourcing is good? Is there a single person posting on this forum who agrees with Thinker? Do we have any takers?

[Thinker]

Incidentally, there is a passage from this article here which I cannot emphasize enough:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4458528
^
"The continued growth in manufacturing output shows that the fall in jobs has not been caused by mass substitution of Chinese goods for locally made ones. It has happened because rich-world companies have replaced workers with new technology to boost productivity and shifted production from labour-intensive products such as textiles to higher-tech, higher value-added, sectors such as pharmaceuticals. Within firms, low-skilled jobs have moved offshore. Higher-value R&D, design and marketing have stayed at home."

In case you're too lazy to read any of the links I provided, that passage there is a sufficient summary. But I would hope you'd read all the links anyway.

[Thinker]

Alright. Before I begin composing my response (never in my life have I seen more missed points, as Potyondi would say), I want to ask the gallery a question. Is there a single person who has browsed this thread who agrees with Thinker that outsourcing is good? Is there a single person posting on this forum who agrees with Thinker?
What - are you trying to seek refuge among supporters? Are you so afraid of responding to what I said that you want to get everyone to gang up on me and overwhelm me with so many posts that I can't possibly respond and will simply drop out of the thread?

Since when is truth a popularity contest?

Why don't you just read what I wrote and respond thusly, regardless of what other people think?

[President Camacho]

It's not just the H1B scandal which mainly accrues to the benefit of Cisco, Intel, M$oft, Sun, HP and the rest, the newest scam is the L1/L2 intracompany transfer visa loophole.

The way it works is that Indian jobshops like Tata Consultancy and Wipro Infosys create subsidiaries in the US that are then permitted to bring in employees from India who are then contracted out to US employers.

The advantage for US employers with this particular wangle is that they have no responsibility for the foreign contractor which is a major benefit compared to the H1B.

Of course the US Immigation Service is completely reliant on the goodfaith declarations of Tata and Wipro that their L1/L2 intracompany transferees have ever even worked for their Indian operations, and that their qualifications are bona-fide.That's very depressing.....

Tell me, do these foreigners usually just come here, work like slaves for a few years and then take their earnings back home, or do they try to actually settle for good in America?

[seanbam]

Maybe you[s] can add your points to my bludgers speech &/or add my points to your topic:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4086

[A. Radek]

Alright. Before I begin composing my response (never in my life have I seen more missed points, as Potyondi would say), I want to ask the gallery a question. Is there a single person who has browsed this thread who agrees with Thinker that outsourcing is good? Is there a single person posting on this forum who agrees with Thinker? Do we have any takers?

Not that I can see. He's merely posted tout sheet articles from industry shill rags, and has yet to respond to any real ssues raised. It's like discussing economics with 'Libertarians' who think stringing together slogans, canards, and hyperbole into run on sentences and paragraphs is 'discussion'. Waste your time if you're that bored if you want, of course, but I don't see any real need to.

[Fade the Butcher]

What - are you trying to seek refuge among supporters?

Hardly. I am just taking a straw poll here of who has made the more persuasive argument. In fact, I have asked for nothing more than for one person who has been convinced by all your false analogies and copy and paste from the outsourcing lobby to come forward and speak his mind.

Are you so afraid of responding to what I said that you want to get everyone to gang up on me and overwhelm me with so many posts that I can't possibly respond and will simply drop out of the thread?

In all likelihood, I will respond to your post(s). There are some sources that I want to check out of the library that are relevant to this debate. The question is thus: would I be wasting my time? Would such a response be worth my effort? If you haven't convinced anyone that what you say is true, then what would be the point?

Since when is truth a popularity contest?

That's what we are doing here. We are trying to get at the truth, you know, we are having a debate about economics.

Why don't you just read what I wrote and respond thusly, regardless of what other people think?

I fully intend to do that. Let's take a time out though and see who is ahead on points.

[Thinker]

I fully intend to do that. Let's take a time out though and see who is ahead on points.
Points? Is this some sort of formal debating club, or something? Do we have professional judges?

Most of the people in this forum already agree with your side - you know that, and I know that (though I certainly don't care). Why do you need a show of hands to show what both of us already know? Are you insecure, or something?

[Fade the Butcher]

Points? Is this some sort of formal debating club, or something? Do we have professional judges?

We are having a debate about economics. The object of this debate, of course, is to discern whether or not the changes going on in our economy are positive or negative. That is why, if you have noticed, I have addressed the gallery in my responses. The majority of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong economic direction, as do the majority of people who post here. 4% of Americans agree with you that the economy is excellent. It would be interesting to see how that number breaks down; how many of that 4% work at Walmart.

Most of the people in this forum already agree with your side - you know that, and I know that (though I certainly don't care).Why do you need a show of hands to show what both of us already know? Are you insecure, or something?

We both know that. I want to know if there is one person here who agrees with you. Just one.

[Thinker]

We are having a debate about economics. The object of this debate, of course, is to discern whether or not the changes going on in our economy are positive or negative. That is why, if you have noticed, I have addressed the gallery in my responses. The majority of Americans believe we are headed in the wrong economic direction, as do the majority of people who post here.

Why ask "the gallery" when you've already shown a scientific poll on this topic? Do you really think "the gallery" is a representative and un-biased sample of opinion?? (LOL!!!)

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060217ii.gif


4% of Americans agree with you that the economy is excellent.

This is absolute proof that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying, because I specfically addressed this claim of yours in a post last night. Please read over some of my posts from last night (or it might have been early in the morning).


We both know that. I want to know if there is one person here who agrees with you. Just one.
Once again, what is the point of this? Do you think I care whether or not anyone agrees with me? I'd personally be surprised if a single person here agreed with me. So if you try to tell me, "See? No one agrees with you," you will be telling me nothing that I don't already know.

[Dan Dare]

Thinker is slowly coming to terms with the fact that being an unpaid PR shill for the promoters of globalisation and mass immigration is a lonely furrow to have to plough.

[Thinker]

Thinker is slowly coming to terms with the fact that being an unpaid PR shill for the promoters of globalisation and mass immigration is a lonely furrow to have to plough.
On the contrary, I'm simply acknowledging that this is a forum populated largely by nativist reactionaries and I'm therefore unlikely to find many people agreeing with my views in a place like this.

[Landser]

"wha wha the knowledge jobs never appeared and R&D is done by non-americans"

What do you expect, a chinese, indian, or former Soviet engineer can all do the work of 10 lazy American boozing "engineering" freshly graduated students.

[Landser]

Incidentally, there is a passage from this article here which I cannot emphasize enough:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4458528
^
"The continued growth in manufacturing output shows that the fall in jobs has not been caused by mass substitution of Chinese goods for locally made ones. It has happened because rich-world companies have replaced workers with new technology to boost productivity and shifted production from labour-intensive products such as textiles to higher-tech, higher value-added, sectors such as pharmaceuticals. Within firms, low-skilled jobs have moved offshore. Higher-value R&D, design and marketing have stayed at home."

In case you're too lazy to read any of the links I provided, that passage there is a sufficient summary. But I would hope you'd read all the links anyway.

unfortunately only a very small % of people in general are capable of "higher value R&D". 1% of 2.3 Billion (China + India + USSR) is a lot more than 1% of 250 million (USA)


The reason outsourcing happens is that American college graduates have a much higher rate of sitting around argueing about the economy on message boards than an indian who is looking to get a job in IT and put in long hours of hard work.

[A. Radek]

On the contrary, I'm simply acknowledging that this is a forum populated largely by nativist reactionaries and I'm therefore unlikely to find many people agreeing with my views in a place like this.

You should also acknowledge you don't know what you're talking about.

Does 'Nativist Reactionary' include most American born hispanics of Mexican descent? Most of them seem to be virulently hostile to criminal illegals. They must be racists.

[Thinker]

You should also acknowledge you don't know what you're talking about.

Does 'Nativist Reactionary' include most American born hispanics of Mexican descent? Most of them seem to be virulently hostile to criminal illegals. They must be racists.
You should acknowledge you don't read very carefully.

Do you know what the word "largely" means?

[Fade the Butcher]

Why ask "the gallery" when you've already shown a scientific poll on this topic? Do you really think "the gallery" is a representative and un-biased sample of opinion?? (LOL!!!)

The point of this debate (and all others) is to inform and persuade the audience.

This is absolute proof that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying, because I specfically addressed this claim of yours in a post last night. Please read over some of my posts from last night (or it might have been early in the morning).

I'm going to address every single one of your points. Stay tuned.

Once again, what is the point of this? Do you think I care whether or not anyone agrees with me? I'd personally be surprised if a single person here agreed with me. So if you try to tell me, "See? No one agrees with you," you will be telling me nothing that I don't already know.

What are you doing here? Masturbating?

[Thinker]

Incidentally Fade, here's some more info about Japan compared to the US for you to chew on, since you regard that Asian nation so highly . . .

You have characterized Japan's export surpluses as some sort of sign it is some kind of super-duper industrial model to be emulated by the US.

Well, if you look a little more closely, you'd learn that, as a percentage of their total economy, Japan's exports are little different from the US's exports:

Exports of Goods and Services as a Percentage of GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_exp_of_goo_and_ser_as_of_gdp)
United States: 11.24%
Japan: 10.44%

In fact, the US exports slightly more as a percentage of its economy than does Japan.

Surprised?

In addition, there really isn't even all that big a difference in imports as a percentage of thier economies, either:
Imports of Goods and Services as a Percentage of GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_imp_of_goo_and_ser_as_of_gdp)
United States: 14.95%
Japan: 9.81%

It's that small ~5% which accounts for the US trade deficits, and Japan's surpluses. The deficits only seem so large because the absolute size of the US economy is so large.

If you click on the links to the data, you'll see that both nations are very near the bottom of the lists - In other words, both nations are relatively self-sufficient, neither importing nor exporting large amounts of goods and services in proportion to their economy.

[Dan Dare]

I think you'll remember our earlier discussions from which it emerged that a large proportion of US exports are primary and secondary resource-based materials and products that are exchanged for higher-value manufactures from economies like Japan and the EU.

Not to mention China of course.

Nor the fact that the US has to also make over very large sums to balance its account. Several hundred billion a year at the present.

editCorrected month to year.

Also what Thinker is glossing over is that the US deficit on its current account is almost 5% of GDP; this is by far the largest of any developed economy in the world. The UK is 1.5%, even Mexico's is only 2.2%. The US has really become the importer and consumer of last resort.

[Thinker]

I think you'll remember our earlier discussions from which it emerged that a large proportion of US exports are primary and secondary resource-based materials and products that are exchanged for higher-value manufactures from economies like Japan and the EU.
Here is the data we discussed earlier. Hardly dominated by primary and secondary goods:

http://tse.export.gov/NTDChartDisplay.aspx?UniqueURL=3bvyru45avfwnmam0nyernrh-2005-3-19-0-30-28

Merchandise exports from the US to the rest of the world, 2004 - in thousands of $USD
Category______________________________________________Amount
NUCLEAR REACTORS, BOILERS, MACHINERY ETC.; PARTS______$149,068,073
ELECTRIC MACHINERY ETC; SOUND EQUIP; TV EQUIP; PTS____ $124,803,540
VEHICLES, EXCEPT RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY, AND PARTS ETC____$73,308,998
OPTIC, PHOTO ETC, MEDIC OR SURGICAL INSTRMENTS ETC_____$51,160,176
AIRCRAFT, SPACECRAFT, AND PARTS THEREOF_______________$42,122,384
PLASTICS AND ARTICLES THEREOF_________________________$33,705,055
ORGANIC CHEMICALS_____________________________________$30,367,713
SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION PROVISIONS, NESOI________________$24,644,628
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS______________________________$19,506,790
MINERAL FUEL, OIL ETC.; BITUMIN SUBST; MINERAL WAX_______$18,954,856
NAT ETC PEARLS, PREC ETC STONES, PR MET ETC; COIN_______$18,092,726
CEREALS_______________________________________________$13,136,432
MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL PRODUCTS______________________$12,553,018
PAPER & PAPERBOARD & ARTICLES (INC PAPR PULP ARTL)_______$11,482,739
ARTICLES OF IRON OR STEEL_______________________________$9,419,097
IRON ANDSTEEL__________________________________________$8,917,444
OIL SEEDS ETC.; MISC GRAIN, SEED, FRUIT, PLANT ETC_________$8,682,108
RUBBER AND ARTICLES THEREOF_____________________________$7,600,858
INORG CHEM; PREC & RARE-EARTH MET & RADIOACT COMPD______$6,846,871
COTTON, INCLUDING YARN AND WOVEN FABRIC THEREOF________$6,371,180
FURNITURE; BEDDING ETC; LAMPS NESOI ETC; PREFAB BD________$6,255,272
ALUMINUM AND ARTICLES THEREOF__________________________$5,977,893
WOOD AND ARTICLES OF WOOD; WOOD CHARCOAL____________$5,867,086
ESSENTIAL OILS ETC; PERFUMERY, COSMETIC ETC PREPS_______$5,516,433
EDIBLE FRUIT & NUTS; CITRUS FRUIT OR MELON PEEL___________$5,368,753
MEAT AND EDIBLE MEAT OFFAL______________________________$4,771,190
TANNING & DYE EXT ETC; DYE, PAINT, PUTTY ETC; INKS________$4,756,548
PRINTED BOOKS, NEWSPAPERS ETC; MANUSCRIPTS ETC_________$4,667,938
WOOD PULP ETC; RECOVD (WASTE & SCRAP) PPR & PPRBD_______$4,621,798
TOYS, GAMES & SPORT EQUIPMENT; PARTS & ACCESSORIES_____$4,225,899
GLASS AND GLASSWARE____________________________________$3,879,154
WORKS OF ART, COLLECTORS' PIECES AND ANTIQUES___________$3,514,577
FOOD INDUSTRY RESIDUES & WASTE; PREP ANIMAL FEED________$3,473,421
COPPER AND ARTICLES THEREOF_____________________________$3,435,914
MISCELLANEOUS EDIBLE PREPARATIONS_______________________$3,428,131
FISH, CRUSTACEANS & AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES_______________$3,307,478
MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES OF BASE METAL____________________$3,258,373
SOAP ETC; WAXES, POLISH ETC; CANDLES; DENTAL PREPS_______$3,231,441
TOOLS, CUTLERY ETC. OF BASE METAL & PARTS THEREOF_______$3,201,629
PHOTOGRAPHIC OR CINEMATOGRAPHIC GOODS_________________$2,889,897
FERTILIZERS_____________________________________________$2,846,078
RAW HIDES AND SKINS (NO FURSKINS) AND LEATHER____________$2,785,891
APPAREL ARTICLES AND ACCESSORIES, KNIT OR CROCHET________$2,698,879
TOBACCO AND MANUFACTURED TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES_________$2,654,865
ARMS AND AMMUNITION; PARTS AND ACCESSORIES THEREOF_____$2,309,864
BEVERAGES, SPIRITS AND VINEGAR___________________________$2,258,501
PREP VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS OR OTHER PLANT PARTS________$2,202,464
EDIBLE VEGETABLES & CERTAIN ROOTS & TUBERS_______________$2,151,307
ANIMAL OR VEGETABLE FATS, OILS ETC. & WAXES______________$2,023,416
APPAREL ARTICLES AND ACCESSORIES, NOT KNIT ETC.$__________1,877,031
MANMADE FILAMENTS, INCLUDING YARNS & WOVEN FABRICS_____$1,866,493
ORES, SLAG AND ASH______________________________________$1,790,251
SHIPS, BOATS AND FLOATING STRUCTURES____________________$1,784,073
RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY STOCK ETC; TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIP______$1,762,987
PREP CEREAL, FLOUR, STARCH OR MILK; BAKERS WARES_________$1,758,481
MANMADE STAPLE FIBERS, INCL YARNS & WOVEN FABRICS_______$1,719,271
SALT; SULFUR; EARTH & STONE; LIME & CEMENT PLASTER_______$1,677,795
ART OF STONE, PLASTER, CEMENT, ASBESTOS, MICA ETC._______$1,659,470
KNITTED OR CROCHETED FABRICS____________________________$1,658,579
ALBUMINOIDAL SUBST; MODIFIED STARCH; GLUE; ENZYMES______$1,653,820
IMPREGNATED ETC TEXT FABRICS; TEX ART FOR INDUSTRY______$1,462,902
WADDING, FELT ETC; SP YARN; TWINE, ROPES ETC.____________$1,430,737
BASE METALS NESOI; CERMETS; ARTICLES THEREOF____________$1,325,320
DAIRY PRODS; BIRDS EGGS; HONEY; ED ANIMAL PR NESOI________$1,181,479
MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURED ARTICLES____________________$1,179,260
TEXTILE ART NESOI; NEEDLECRAFT SETS; WORN TEXT ART______$1,052,147
CERAMIC PRODUCTS_________________________________________$982,572
EDIBLE PREPARATIONS OF MEAT, FISH, CRUSTACEANS ETC________$931,432
SPEC WOV FABRICS; TUFTED FAB; LACE; TAPESTRIES ETC________$844,956
LEATHER ART; SADDLERY ETC; HANDBAGS ETC; GUT ART__________$819,736
CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS________________$806,862
COCOA AND COCOA PREPARATIONS____________________________$790,877
SUGARS AND SUGAR CONFECTIONARY__________________________$733,966
NICKEL AND ARTICLES THEREOF_______________________________$725,392
MILLING PRODUCTS; MALT; STARCH; INULIN; WHT GLUTEN________$685,244
FOOTWEAR, GAITERS ETC. AND PARTS THEREOF_________________$650,867
PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN, NESOI__________________________$565,973
CLOCKS AND WATCHES AND PARTS THEREOF____________________$557,827
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS; PARTS AND ACCESSORIES THEREOF______$532,967
LIVE ANIMALS______________________________________________$518,768
EXPLOSIVES; PYROTECHNICS; MATCHES; PYRO ALLOYS ETC_______$494,190
COFFEE, TEA, MATE & SPICES________________________________$458,086
LAC; GUMS, RESINS & OTHER VEGETABLE SAP & EXTRACT_________$326,753
LIVE TREES, PLANTS, BULBS ETC.; CUT FLOWERS ETC.____________$312,344
FURSKINS AND ARTIFICIAL FUR; MANUFACTURES THEREOF_________$215,408
ZINC AND ARTICLES THEREOF_________________________________$154,705
HEADGEAR AND PARTS THEREOF_______________________________$128,351
LEAD AND ARTICLES THEREOF_________________________________$109,426
WOOL & ANIMAL HAIR, INCLUDING YARN & WOVEN FABRIC_________$108,348
TIN AND ARTICLES THEREOF___________________________________$85,959
PREP FEATHERS, DOWN ETC; ARTIF FLOWERS; H HAIR ART__________$52,794
CORK AND ARTICLES OF CORK__________________________________$45,143
VEGETABLE PLAITING MATERIALS & PRODUCTS NESOI______________$37,146
SILK, INCLUDING YARNS AND WOVEN FABRIC THEREOF_____________$29,843
VEG TEXT FIB NESOI; VEG FIB & PAPER YNS & WOV FAB_________ __$27,408
MFR OF STRAW, ESPARTO ETC.; BASKETWARE & WICKERWRK_______$25,604
UMBRELLAS, WALKING-STICKS, RIDING-CROPS ETC, PARTS__________$12,031


Nor the fact that the US has to also make over very large sums to balance its account. Several hundred billion a year at the present.

"Make over large sums?" Not sure what you meant by that.

As noted above, the large absolute values of the US trade deficit have as much to do with the large size of the US economy than anything else.


Also what Thinker is glossing over is that the US deficit on its current account is almost 5% of GDP; this is by far the largest of any developed economy in the world. The UK is 1.5%, even Mexico's is only 2.2%. The US has really become the importer and consumer of last resort.
Australia's trade deficit as of 2005 is 6.4% of GDP, as is Spain's.

[Thinker]

Here's a handy-dandy chart showing balance of trade as a percentage of GDP:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_cur_acc_bal_pergdp
^
Among developed nations, the US is in the same territory as Hungary, Iceland, Australia, and sort-of Portugal and New Zealand.

EDIT: The data on that for Spain and Australia seems a bit different from the CIA World Factbook data I got in my post above. When I calculuted Spain and Australia from the CIA World Factbook I couldn't tell whether they used PPP or exchange rate, so I used PPP (wasn't that big a difference). Also I'm not sure if the two sources use the same year. Nonetheless they're in the same ballpark and give a general idea.

[Thinker]

From here:
http://tse.export.gov/NTDChart.aspx?UniqueURL=jjqgbc55wfl1u1yzfueedc55-2005-3-19-23-2-41

Here's the list of things we have a net deficit of in imports, in thousands of $USD, in 2004.

MINERAL FUEL, OIL ETC.; BITUMIN SUBST; MINERAL WAX______$186,969,413
VEHICLES, EXCEPT RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY, AND PARTS ETC___$117,940,556
ELECTRIC MACHINERY ETC; SOUND EQUIP; TV EQUIP; PTS_____$60,145,224
NUCLEAR REACTORS, BOILERS, MACHINERY ETC.; PARTS______$51,617,584
APPAREL ARTICLES AND ACCESSORIES, NOT KNIT ETC.________$33,410,075
APPAREL ARTICLES AND ACCESSORIES, KNIT OR CROCHET_____$28,883,472
FURNITURE; BEDDING ETC; LAMPS NESOI ETC; PREFAB BD______$27,515,049
TOYS, GAMES & SPORT EQUIPMENT; PARTS & ACCESSORIES____$17,736,255
WOOD AND ARTICLES OF WOOD; WOOD CHARCOAL____________$17,044,399
SPECIAL IMPORT PROVISIONS, NESOI_______________________$16,193,577
FOOTWEAR, GAITERS ETC. AND PARTS THEREOF______________$15,854,471
NAT ETC PEARLS, PREC ETC STONES, PR MET ETC; COIN_______$15,310,323
IRON AND STEEL________________________________________$13,561,121
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS_____________________________$11,818,962
ARTICLES OF IRON OR STEEL______________________________$10,364,014
BEVERAGES, SPIRITS AND VINEGAR_________________________$9,528,517
SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION PROVISIONS, NESOI_______________$9,291,279
ORGANIC CHEMICALS_____________________________________$7,840,184
LEATHER ART; SADDLERY ETC; HANDBAGS ETC; GUT ART_______$7,411,833
TEXTILE ART NESOI; NEEDLECRAFT SETS; WORN TEXT ART______$6,839,399
ALUMINUM AND ARTICLES THEREOF__________________________$6,629,955
RUBBER AND ARTICLES THEREOF____________________________$5,934,955
FISH, CRUSTACEANS & AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES______________$5,395,055
PAPER & PAPERBOARD & ARTICLES (INC PAPR PULP ARTL)________$5,378,711
CERAMIC PRODUCTS_______________________________________$3,684,092
CLOCKS AND WATCHES AND PARTS THEREOF__________________$3,230,806
ART OF STONE, PLASTER, CEMENT, ASBESTOS, MICA ETC._______$3,211,193
MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES OF BASE METAL____________________$3,166,121
TOOLS, CUTLERY ETC. OF BASE METAL & PARTS THEREOF_______$2,552,814
COFFEE, TEA, MATE & SPICES_______________________________$2,379,488
EDIBLE PREPARATIONS OF MEAT, FISH, CRUSTACEANS ETC_______$2,150,282
COPPER AND ARTICLES THEREOF_____________________________$2,149,433
MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURED ARTICLES____________________$2,066,804
EDIBLE VEGETABLES & CERTAIN ROOTS & TUBERS_______________$1,890,228
INORG CHEM; PREC & RARE-EARTH MET & RADIOACT COMPD______$1,845,034
WORKS OF ART, COLLECTORS' PIECES AND ANTIQUES___________$1,786,625
COCOA AND COCOA PREPARATIONS__________________________$1,705,486
HEADGEAR AND PARTS THEREOF_____________________________$1,398,405
NICKEL AND ARTICLES THEREOF_____________________________$1,342,469
PREP VEGETABLES, FRUIT, NUTS OR OTHER PLANT PARTS________$1,342,299
SUGARS AND SUGAR CONFECTIONARY_________________________$1,255,847
GLASS AND GLASSWARE____________________________________$1,212,830
PREP FEATHERS, DOWN ETC; ARTIF FLOWERS; H HAIR ART_______$1,198,168
LIVE TREES, PLANTS, BULBS ETC.; CUT FLOWERS ETC.__________$1,064,878
CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS_______________$1,030,693
PREP CEREAL, FLOUR, STARCH OR MILK; BAKERS WARES_________$1,014,455
ZINC AND ARTICLES THEREOF_________________________________$974,351
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS; PARTS AND ACCESSORIES THEREOF_______$971,941
LIVE ANIMALS______________________________________________$919,786
SALT; SULFUR; EARTH & STONE; LIME & CEMENT PLASTER_________$699,274
TIN AND ARTICLES THEREOF__________________________________$413,486
MFR OF STRAW, ESPARTO ETC.; BASKETWARE & WICKERWRK______$403,944
DAIRY PRODS; BIRDS EGGS; HONEY; ED ANIMAL PR NESOI_________$344,455
ESSENTIAL OILS ETC; PERFUMERY, COSMETIC ETC PREPS_________$344,134
UMBRELLAS, WALKING-STICKS, RIDING-CROPS ETC, PARTS_________$329,625
MEAT AND EDIBLE MEAT OFFAL________________________________$323,968
SHIPS, BOATS AND FLOATING STRUCTURES_____________________$299,972
SILK, INCLUDING YARNS AND WOVEN FABRIC THEREOF____________$261,328
WOOL & ANIMAL HAIR, INCLUDING YARN & WOVEN FABRIC_________$235,354
FURSKINS AND ARTIFICIAL FUR; MANUFACTURES THEREOF________$226,428
ANIMAL OR VEGETABLE FATS, OILS ETC. & WAXES_______________$224,416
LAC; GUMS, RESINS & OTHER VEGETABLE SAP & EXTRACT_________$196,775
CORK AND ARTICLES OF CORK________________________________$168,092
VEG TEXT FIB NESOI; VEG FIB & PAPER YNS & WOV FAB___________$160,516
MANMADE FILAMENTS, INCLUDING YARNS & WOVEN FABRICS_______$103,895
LEAD AND ARTICLES THEREOF_________________________________$83,073
BASE METALS NESOI; CERMETS; ARTICLES THEREOF_______________$79,183
PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN, NESOI___________________________$57,933
ORES, SLAG AND ASH_________________________________________$25,740
VEGETABLE PLAITING MATERIALS & PRODUCTS NESOI______________$12,885

[Dan Dare]

Here is the data we discussed earlier. Hardly dominated by primary and secondary goods

I believe it's correct to say that an economy in which almost 40% of whose exports consist of agricultural products and mineral products is not an economy that focuses on adding value.

"Make over large sums?" Not sure what you meant by that.

Think of it as taking on external debt.

As noted above, the large absolute values of the US trade deficit have as much to do with the large size of the US economy than anything else.

I was not talking about the absolute value, rather as a proportion of GDP. That is a more important measure.

Australia's trade deficit as of 2005 is 6.4% of GDP, as is Spain's.

Correct for Australia, they are heading for trouble as well. Their current deficit has more than doubled in the last two years. Not correct for Spain; they stand at 2.9% (per the Economist).

[President Camacho]

The reason outsourcing happens is that American college graduates have a much higher rate of sitting around argueing about the economy on message boards than an indian who is looking to get a job in IT and put in long hours of hard work.
Nobody is denying that....

It is the effects of these unassimalible foreigners coming to American universities en masse and settling here for good that is the real concern.

I am sure there are plenty of Bantu tribesmen willing to work unskilled jobs in American factories for, say, $1/day*. Should American companies be permitted to load 'em on a boat and bring them over? After all, they're more productive.
(*Ignoring the fact that there is a minimum wage here, the relevance of the argument still stands)

[Thinker]

And last, but not least, here's a list of things we have a net surplus of trade in. I think this is what Dan was thinking of when he said our exports were dominated by primary and secondary products. Correctly, it is the things we have a net surplus of which are (sort-of) dominated by primary and secondary products. Data, again, is from 2004:

88--AIRCRAFT, SPACECRAFT, AND PARTS THEREOF_____________25,626,501
10--CEREALS_____________________________________________12,339,263
12--OIL SEEDS ETC.; MISC GRAIN, SEED, FRUIT, PLANT ETC_______7,752,623
39--PLASTICS AND ARTICLES THEREOF________________________7,108,640
90--OPTIC, PHOTO ETC, MEDIC OR SURGICAL INSTRMENTS ETC____6,619,512
38--MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL PRODUCTS_____________________6,346,618
52--COTTON, INCLUDING YARN AND WOVEN FABRIC THEREOF______4,444,311
23--FOOD INDUSTRY RESIDUES & WASTE; PREP ANIMAL FEED_____2,635,004
32--TANNING & DYE EXT ETC; DYE, PAINT, PUTTY ETC; INKS______2,066,702
41--RAW HIDES AND SKINS (NO FURSKINS) AND LEATHER_________1,896,566
47--WOOD PULP ETC; RECOVD (WASTE & SCRAP) PPR & PPRBD____1,681,985
34--SOAP ETC; WAXES, POLISH ETC; CANDLES; DENTAL PREPS____1,429,588
24--TOBACCO AND MANUFACTURED TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES______1,368,645
21--MISCELLANEOUS EDIBLE PREPARATIONS____________________1,247,381
93--ARMS AND AMMUNITION; PARTS AND ACCESSORIES THEREOF____961,268
60--KNITTED OR CROCHETED FABRICS___________________________676,086
37--PHOTOGRAPHIC OR CINEMATOGRAPHIC GOODS________________491,250
86--RAILWAY OR TRAMWAY STOCK ETC; TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIP_____481,402
49--PRINTED BOOKS, NEWSPAPERS ETC; MANUSCRIPTS ETC________434,671
55--MANMADE STAPLE FIBERS, INCL YARNS & WOVEN FABRICS______425,571
31--FERTILIZERS____________________________________________274,467
59--IMPREGNATED ETC TEXT FABRICS; TEX ART FOR INDUSTRY_____223,257
08--EDIBLE FRUIT & NUTS; CITRUS FRUIT OR MELON PEEL__________188,242
56--WADDING, FELT ETC; SP YARN; TWINE, ROPES ETC.___________177,132
35--ALBUMINOIDAL SUBST; MODIFIED STARCH; GLUE; ENZYMES_____153,367
11--MILLING PRODUCTS; MALT; STARCH; INULIN; WHT GLUTEN______142,717
58--SPEC WOV FABRICS; TUFTED FAB; LACE; TAPESTRIES ETC______135,547
36--EXPLOSIVES; PYROTECHNICS; MATCHES; PYRO ALLOYS ETC_____90,168

[Thinker]

I believe it's correct to say that an economy in which almost 40% of whose exports consist of agricultural products and mineral products is not an economy that focuses on adding value.

Looking at my first list of gross US exports, I'm not sure where you get that 40% from.


I was not talking about the absolute value, rather as a proportion of GDP. That is a more important measure.

Agreed.


Correct for Australia, they are heading for trouble as well. Their current deficit has more than doubled in the last two years. Not correct for Spain; they stand at 2.9% (per the Economist).
Hmmm. Well there seems to be some confusion over Spain. Whatever.

[Dan Dare]

Looking at my first list of gross US exports, I'm not sure where you get that 40% from.

Total exports $B 818, total 'high-value' exports $B 493 or 60.2.%. I'm taking high-value to include machinery, optics, organic chemicals etc, and apparel, footwear etc as low value.

It's not a scientific calculation but does give a first-order approximation.

[Thinker]

^
Hmmm. That seems like a really (really really . . .) quick and dirty method.

Whatever makes you happy . . .

[ironweed]

This is a load of crap on so many levels I'm not sure precisely where to begin, so I'll let it stand and everybody can compare there empirical experiences to it.

Manpower survey shows worldwide "talent shortage"

Employers are having difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs despite high unemployment in Europe and the United States, a survey by U.S.-based staffing firm Manpower (NYSE:MAN - news) showed on Tuesday.

The survey conducted late in January showed that 40 percent of nearly 33,000 employers in 23 countries across the world were struggling to find qualified job candidates.

"The talent shortage is becoming a reality for a larger number of employers around the world," Manpower's CEO and Chairman Jeffrey Joerres said in a statement.

"Across North America and Asia, the top three talent shortages are identical - sales representatives rank number one, followed by engineers and technicians," Joerres said.

"Employers are telling us that they are not just looking for bodies to fill sales jobs, they want experienced sales people who know their respective industries and can drive revenues."

Like its Swiss rival Adecco (ADEN.VX), Manpower is looking to increase profits by emphasizing higher-margin specialty staffing services in areas such as engineering and accounting -- areas that the survey highlighted as suffering from the talent shortage.

Joerres said that in 10 years' time, many businesses would fail because they had not planned ahead for the talent shortage and would be unable to find the people they need to run their businesses.

Continued (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060220/bs_nm/services_manpower_dc;_ylt=AnW2vvFlytlGsmK_zLqwPkGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-)

[ironweed]

Oops. Meant to do that as a new thread. Though I guess it works okay in this one.

[Landser]

Nobody is denying that....

It is the effects of these unassimalible foreigners coming to American universities en masse and settling here for good that is the real concern.

I am sure there are plenty of Bantu tribesmen willing to work unskilled jobs in American factories for, say, $1/day*. Should American companies be permitted to load 'em on a boat and bring them over? After all, they're more productive.
(*Ignoring the fact that there is a minimum wage here, the relevance of the argument still stands)

No, the arguement doesn't stand.

Category of jobs that go to indian Berkeley engineering majors: a high paying high responsibility job that companies are ready to scour the world to find the best candidate for.

Category of jobs you're talking about: low pay grunt jobs where you just need a human to fill a spot.

Tech companies would love to hire American students, and do when possible, but the average American student does not have the capability and deep interest in the subject as a non-US born student.

[SteamshipTime]

The survey conducted late in January showed that 40 percent of nearly 33,000 employers in 23 countries across the world were struggling to find qualified job candidates.

Translation: employers are struggling to find job candidates who will work for Third World levels of compensation.

[A. Radek]

What do you expect, a chinese, indian, or former Soviet engineer can all do the work of 10 lazy American boozing "engineering" freshly graduated students.

Really? Got any evidence of this? I saw nothing in the Bay area that would prove this. Russian engineers are a joke. So are Koreans.

[A. Radek]

This is a load of crap on so many levels I'm not sure precisely where to begin, so I'll let it stand and everybody can compare there empirical experiences to it.

Manpower survey shows worldwide "talent shortage"

Employers are having difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs despite high unemployment in Europe and the United States, a survey by U.S.-based staffing firm Manpower (NYSE:MAN - news) showed on Tuesday.

The survey conducted late in January showed that 40 percent of nearly 33,000 employers in 23 countries across the world were struggling to find qualified job candidates.

"The talent shortage is becoming a reality for a larger number of employers around the world," Manpower's CEO and Chairman Jeffrey Joerres said in a statement.

"Across North America and Asia, the top three talent shortages are identical - sales representatives rank number one, followed by engineers and technicians," Joerres said.

"Employers are telling us that they are not just looking for bodies to fill sales jobs, they want experienced sales people who know their respective industries and can drive revenues."

Like its Swiss rival Adecco (ADEN.VX), Manpower is looking to increase profits by emphasizing higher-margin specialty staffing services in areas such as engineering and accounting -- areas that the survey highlighted as suffering from the talent shortage.

Joerres said that in 10 years' time, many businesses would fail because they had not planned ahead for the talent shortage and would be unable to find the people they need to run their businesses.

Continued (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060220/bs_nm/services_manpower_dc;_ylt=AnW2vvFlytlGsmK_zLqwPkGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-)

I have personal experience with both Manpower and Adecco. They're lying through their teeth. Steamship has nailed what the 'shortage' they're referring to is. The offers are getting an experienced American in there to train their green cards and insourced 'engineer's up to speed, then fire or lay off the American, or in many cases, Aussies and Brits as well, brought in for the same reasons.

Of Course, most people with those skills 'in demand' will move on to other careers, or buy a cheap farm and drop out of the system altogether rather than be jerked around like that. Let them collapse in ten years; it's their own fault, not their workers.

As for Silly Con Valley, one can compare tech offers of $20 and hour with a what a long haul truck driver living in Arkansas can pull down, and easily see which is doing better, when the cost of living is thrown in. $40K a year in the Bay area, and you can't even get financing for a trailer house, $60K a year in rural Arkansas is high cotton. One they want a degree and three years experience for what is a boom and bust temp job, the other no education at all and one years experience. Which would you take? Lots of degreed people out there driving trucks around.

[A. Radek]

Somebody brought up Intel in Arizona? Intel has the wonderful practice of trumping up silly reasons to fire as many people as possible when a layoff is coming up, tactics like firing somebody for leaving a coffee cup on the table during lunch, etc., in order to minimize the numbers of people who will qualify for unemployment insurance when they dump the usual thousands into the streets every few months.

This pretty much assures a big list of blacklisted 'do Not Hire' employees, as well as making certain anybody who knows of this fine practice of theirs will not bother applying or relocate to Arizona to work for the vermin, in a 'Right To Work' state, where being fired means you can't get unemployment, and there is not much in Arizona that pays a living wage; they have lots and lots of criminal illegals filling up the jobs people will take to keep working while they look around for something better, which makes unemployment a cause, indeed makes it a necessity, to leave the state entirely, which, of course, means a lot fewer skilled people around to answer the next big upturn in production.

The government feels their pain, especially after a hefty campaign contribution, so provides lots of methods, like green cards and insourcing scams, to help them out of suffering the effects of their bad management. They create the shortage artificially, then cry to the Feds to allow them to inport labor to replace the labor they screwed over and blacklisted to save a few pennies the next quarter. This pattern is repeated over most of these companies crying 'shortage'.

I actually had some idiot at an instrumentation company on Long Island offer me $14 an hour, as if I would move to Long Island and sleep in my car or something for the great privilege of kissing his ass. Too funny. These morons have absolutely no clue.

[Kodos]

Adecco is one company im waiting on now( every 3 days I apply for like 60 jobs or so...) got a call from them.

[A. Radek]

Adecco is one company im waiting on now( every 3 days I apply for like 60 jobs or so...) got a call from them.

I dealt with them locally. They handled the temp hiring for Motorola, and needed RF tech engineers, which isn't even my field, but I do screw with radios and tank circuits a lot, and DSP as well; none of the Asians that made up the vast bulk of their workforce could read English or work an O scope. I took a whole battery of test for three days, went to three interviews, and after all that, they decided they would put me 'on salary' for a lousy $4K a month, with 'variable hours' on a '3month contract', meaning they would run me into the ground for 100 hours a week, then dump me. So, they went from offering me $18 an hour and a 30 hour week, to giving me a 'promotion' to what would work out to $10 an hour, actually much less when factoring in the avoidance of paying time and a half over 40 hours. I'd have been better off if I had failed most of the tests.

I turned them down, of course, as did a few thousand others, this place is crawling with Electronics techs, they just didn't want to pay them or keep them around after we built their workstations, test benches, and then trained their 'insourced' staff for them. Motorola moved to Mexico last year, anyway. Now, they want morons who will move there from here to do the same thing, and of course whine about the 'dire shortage of qualified technicians who will relocate'. LOL

Your results may vary. My experiences with these agencies is they're shit.

[Dan Dare]

One aspect of the 'browning' of the high-tech field is the overall depressant effect on wages, particularly hourly rates for specialist contractors. The rates that say Wipro ask for code jockeys in Bangalore have now become the industry benchmark.

So even if your speciality is relatively immune to competition from outsourcing, at contract negotiation time the conversation usually goes something like this:

Employer - "I see you're still asking $ X per hour for the new project"

Contractor - "Yeah, but as you know my hourly rates haven't changed since 2000"

Employer - "This would be really tough to swing in the present climate, you know the beaners are really excited about the Wipro deal, they only want $ X/3. This deal is going to enable us to move most basic development and all testing offshore".

Contractor - " We've been through all this before, you know very well you can't hire somebody in India to do what I do"

Employer - "True, but you're going to have to sharpen your pencil, it's a whole new ballgame now. Nobody's going to pay $ X for anything anymore"

[Landser]

Really? Got any evidence of this? I saw nothing in the Bay area that would prove this. Russian engineers are a joke. So are Koreans.

I should ask you the reverse, you're the one that sounds like you're out of work and bitching about the "bad job market".

[Kodos]

I should ask you the reverse, you're the one that sounds like you're out of work and bitching about the "bad job market".

The South is better off then most of the country Landser( c'mon I solved most of your logic puzzles that would have stumped your frat buddies) though I'll concede you're prob a genius.

[President Camacho]

The South is better off then most of the country Landser( c'mon I solved most of your logic puzzles that would have stumped your frat buddies) though I'll concede you're prob a genius.LOL get off his dick already. :rofl:

[Thinker]

I'm going to address every single one of your points. Stay tuned.

Ahem. Have we forgotten something? Or are we trying to change the topic to other threads?

[Fade the Butcher]

Ahem. Have we forgotten something? Or are we trying to change the topic to other threads?

No, I have a long memory. Right now I have over two dozen sources checked out of the library. I have been reading through those taking notes in recent weeks, but you are right, I have been distracted by other threads.

[Thinker]

Fair-enough. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled on this thread. :)

[Fade the Butcher]

Fair-enough. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled on this thread. :)

I have already completed a third of my response.

[Thinker]

*clears throat*

Ahem.

[Thinker]

I'm going to address every single one of your points. Stay tuned.

Ahem.

While Fade is busy forgetting about what he said several months ago, I thought I'd stick this tidbit of info here, just for the heck of it.

This is from th BLS July Employment Situation Report, which came out today.

As has been the case for most of the past several months, the aggregate # of jobs added has been disappointing. It looks like we've fallen into a 'soft spot.' Who knows - we might even fall into a recession soon.

But that's not what I'm posting this for. What I'm posting this for is to show "the audience" that, contrary to claims by Fade and his freinds at VDare, not all of the new jobs being created are Wal-Mart and burger-flipper jobs.

In fact, most aren't. Even in a disappointing month, most of the new jobs being created are in business and professional services and health care. While food services and drinking places did also add a lot of jobs, retail employment remained flat (and has for quite a while, actually). I suppose all those new Starbucks openings do create a lot of food service jobs. :D

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
^
Page 4:

"Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in July to 135.4 million. This increase was in line with the average monthly gain for the prior 3 months (112,000) but was well below the average monthly gain for the 12 months ending in March (169,000). In July, job growth continued in professional and business services, health care, food services, and mining. (See table B-1.)

Employment in professional and business services continued to grow in July (+43,000). Within the industry, job gains occurred in computer systems design (+12,000), architectural and engineering services (+10,000), and management and technical consulting (+6,000). Temporary help services employment remained flat over the month and has shown little net change since January.

Health care employment rose by 23,000 in July. Nursing and residential care facilities, along with hospitals, continued to add jobs. Over the past 12 = months, health care employment has grown by 274,000.

In leisure and hospitality, food services and drinking places employment grew by 29,000 in July. Over the year, food services has added 229,000 jobs.

Elsewhere in the service-providing sector, employment in wholesale trade was flat in July; this industry added an average of 11,000 jobs per month from January through June. Employment in retail trade was unchanged in July. General merchandise stores lost 8,000 jobs over the month; employment in the industry has declined by 74,000 since August 2005. Financial activities had little employment growth for the third month in a row.

In the goods-producing sector, mining employment grew by 8,000 in July. The industry has added 123,000 jobs since its most recent low in April 2003, largely reflecting gains in support activities for oil and gas. In July, construction employment was little changed for the fifth consecutive month.

Manufacturing employment edged down in July (-15,000); the decrease largely offset a gain in June. In July, job losses in transportation equipment (-9,000), computer and electronic products (-8,000), and textile mills (-2,000) more than offset employment increases in machinery (+8,000) and chemicals (+4,000)."