Are Airlines Outsourcing Maintenance to Other Countries Increasingly?

[The Smoking Man]

Granted ...

It is when the cost of the education outstrips the ability to pay back student loans that you figure out the GOVERNMENT and your institution thinks your education is worth more than it is.

Woah ... are we off topic or what!?

 

[russ_watters]

It is when the cost of the education outstrips the ability to pay back student loans that you figure out the GOVERNMENT and your institution thinks your education is worth more than it is.

No. Colleges are businesses. What they charge for their service is based on supply and demand, not any intrinsic value to their product. Demand is going up, so price is going up.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No. Colleges are businesses. What they charge for their service is based on supply and demand, not any intrinsic value to their product. Demand is going up, so price is going up.

Yeah, but ian't a loan guarantor .. government ... supposed step into see the possibilities of a loan being defaulted upon?

It isn't as if they can reposess your frontal lobe!

You don't guarantee loans to buy a BMW to run a pizza service so why do you guarantee loans to people who will eventually work at Mickey D's?

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, but ian't a loan guarantor .. government ... supposed step into see the possibilities of a loan being defaulted upon?

Government isn't going to "step in" - they are already in. But to the question of whether government should use better judgement in providing of college loans to people who may not be able to pay them back, the answer is no. Government is not a business and college loans are a form of charity - a subsidy. They don't put much effort into ensuring they will be paid back because they aren't concerned with profit, they are concerned with sending as many people to college as they can. That's the purpose of government (backed?) college loans.

(caveat: I'm not sure if college loans come directly from the government or if they are just backed by the government, but the difference is immaterial.)

 

[Smurf]

in BC they come directly from the Government

 

[edward]

No. Colleges are businesses. What they charge for their service is based on supply and demand, not any intrinsic value to their product. Demand is going up, so price is going up.

Based on the total debt burden of graduates , colleges and universities should have booming profits, but many state affiliated schools are struggling.

Student loan debt is 85 percent higher among recent college graduates who took on debt while attending public four-year colleges than among graduates from a decade ago.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/debt_college_grads.htm


Google "student loans available" and then compare the number of hits with the number of students who are not earning up to their expected and potential salaries.
Then perhaps (but I doubt it) you will get an idea of what underemployment really means.

 

[Burnsys]

Google "student loans available" and then compare that with the number of students who are not earning up to their expected and potential salaries.
Then perhaps (but I doubt it) you will get an idea of what underemployment really means.

that is what i call "Connecting the dots"

 

[edward]

You are making a postivie claim (underemployment is increasing) that you then say there is no data to support. So on wha do you base that claim?

The link below is an 18 page excerpt from a book. Reading the first two pages should give you an idea of what I am talking about.

http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/0140/sample/0521810140ws.pdf

Data is hard to find and it sure as hell won't be found on a government web site. One easy source Russ; is to just talk to people. As far as nationwide statistical data, only the department of labor could do that and that is highly unlikely. It also would require a big clean up on Wallstreet when all of those "suits" deficated in their pants after seeing the results of a statistical analysis of Underemployment.

 

[edward]

Original topic outsourcing

There is much more to this topic than just the loss of jobs. The older persons who become unemployed must start again. And they of course must find new jobs. I know skilled workers who have been forced to take on menial labor and sales jobs. New entrants into the work force are not finding meaningful work.

Yes folks meaningful work is important to people, it is not just an Entitlement as some have stated, it is a part of human nature. For instance children born to parents who are unemployed or underemployed have a lower birth weight than children born to parents working at their full potential. (Journal of American Psychology)

Unemployment and Underemployment even effects ones health and productivity.

The link below has a short video on outsourcing.


http://www.rescueamericanjobs.com/

 

[BobG]

You are making a postivie claim (underemployment is increasing) that you then say there is no data to support. So on wha do you base that claim?

The fact of the matter is that income levels are rising across all income groups (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/inchhtoc.html ). That, to me, is the most relevant piece of data on the employment situation The fact that people are unhappy with their level of employment is not an indication that the employment situation is a bad one. In fact, to me it points to an increase in the sense of entitlement, not a decrease in the strength of the job market.

True enough, although the chart that converts all income to 2003 dollars to take inflation into account is the most pertinent. It's what you can purchase with those dollars that matters most.

Since '67, the adjusted income for the poorest has increased 28%, the fourth fifth 25%, the middle 40%, the second fifth 57%, and the top fifth 74%. The problem is that people don't look at the long term trend when faced with a short term problem - not when short term is measured in years!

From 2000 to 2003, the adjusted income for the poorest fell 6%, the fourth fifth fell 3.6%, the middle fell 2.3%, the second fifth fell 0.5%, and richest fifth fell 0.7%.

Besides, it's not the numbers that have the biggest impression on people. It's the fact that outsourcing has started taking a new class of jobs - jobs the general public thought were secure career fields. That makes more than just those directly affected wonder what the future holds.

 

[russ_watters]

Google "student loans available" and then compare the number of hits with the number of students who are not earning up to their expected and potential salaries.
Then perhaps (but I doubt it) you will get an idea of what underemployment really means.

edward, I acknowledged the people percieve themselves to be "underemployed" - my argument that that perception does not reflect the reality of the US economic sitiuation, it simply reflects a growing sense of entitlement and growing number of people going to college because they think they should go to college (not for the sake of learning a specific trade to get a good job).

I guess we could fix this perception problem by offering less student loans - then less people would go to college and they wouldn't be overqualified for their jobs. Personally, I don't think that's the way to go...

I'm sorry, but its no one's responsibility but yours to get you the job you think you deserve. But what I can promise you is that if you (on average) perform as well as your parents, you will do better financially than they did.

Regarding that study from Cal, its a real eye-roller. Its an examination of the social effects of something it takes as gosphel: it isn't an attempt to prove the existence of an underemployment problem, it assumes it exists and discusses its effects.

 

[outsider]

There is much more to this topic than just the loss of jobs. The older persons who become unemployed must start again. And they of course must find new jobs. I know skilled workers who have been forced to take on menial labor and sales jobs. New entrants into the work force are not finding meaningful work.

I'm observing the same thing... but I don't agree with your feelings completely.

Yes folks meaningful work is important to people, it is not just an Entitlement as some have stated, it is a part of human nature.

Why do people want education? To feel "important" in society by qualifying themselves to do something with their lives to feel a sense of self satisfaction. Let's put it this way: there is a selfish motive. It is this self perception that disqualifies average jobs as meaningful work. So the definition of meaningful work is defined by each person. As an example we can use examples that people can somehow relate to: Government street workers, meter maids... etc... do people consider this meaningful work?

For instance children born to parents who are unemployed or underemployed have a lower birth weight than children born to parents working at their full potential. (Journal of American Psychology)

Unemployment and Underemployment even effects ones health and productivity.

The link below has a short video on outsourcing.


http://www.rescueamericanjobs.com/

Not everyone who completes training will receive the job that they were trained for. This is not a closed system where if there was one "meaningful" job available, they would only train one person to fill the position. Almost any monkey can sit through a class, memorize the info and pass an exam. Companies feel entitled to hire the most qualified candidate from their perspective. From a marketing standpoint, this may be that the staight C buxom blonde is hired over a straight A frumpy fat old black lady... the intrinsic value of a beautiful woman is far greater than the educational value from a business perspective. (also if you are too smart, you may easily get bored with work, or worse... you become a threat).

Since business and education (in most cases) are not connected, business has no responsibility to maintain the jobs that education promises it's students. Just the same way that if the marketplace isn't buying new computers... DELL will not buy more chips from INTEL. It's all based on needs. So no one is (technically) entitled to a job due to qualifications. When you pay for a meal at a restaurant you get a meal. When you pay for an education, you shouldn't expect a job.

Education to some degree gives it's students a false hope of reality, but that IS reality.

Every entity has it's own agenda...

 

[russ_watters]

BobG, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, there - yes, incomes fell from 2000-2003. That's a reflection of the employment (unemployment) situation and is cyclical in nature. But if what edward was saying were true, incomes would be decreasing even as unemployment is decreasing. Since they are not, that makes the "underemployment" problem entirely a perception problem.

Outsourcing is an interesting problem because it typically affects (or appears to affect) entire specific fields, but not the economy as a whole. What we read in the papers is that 10,000 workers for a garment company lost their jobs due to outsourcing, but what you don't hear is that that company's profits rose so much as a result, it bought a retail chain (made-up, but typical example). If outsourcing was really hurting the economy it would manifest in higher unemployment rates.

 

[BobG]

Perception is everything. People can't be blamed for seeing a problem.

After adjusting for inflation, wages should increase a little over 1% per year (a little less for the lower income groups, a little higher for middle and upper class groups, with the richest gaining about 2% per year).

By time Reagan took office, wages had lagged quite a ways below what they should be compared to inflation. By time Reagan left office, wages were slightly ahead of where you'd expect them to be (in other words, the perception of his economy was affected as much by Carter's poor economy as his own steady growth economy).

By time Clinton took office, wages had lagged way behind again (Bush I's economy sucked!). The economy during Clinton's years were phenomenal! First, they naturally caught back from the Bush I years. Second, wages kept growing at a rate way above what could be sustained long term. Wage growth wasn't just above average during his presidency - it was double it's long term rate of growth!

If you think Clinton's a miracle worker, you believe that gain was real and should never be given back. If you think he was a lousy president, you salivate at what the economy is going to be like when the next president takes over. If you think he was fair to middling, or even just a little above average, you cringe at what's ahead for the economy.

In fact, a president inheriting a bad economy is probably destined to be a two-term president and a president inheriting a good economy is probably destined to be a one term president - the most recent exceptions are Carter who inherited a bad economy and left an even worse one; and Bush who inherited a great economy and had wages fall to below average by reelection time (in other words, the economy wound up doing even worse than expected).

Outsourcing does contribute to some worker's problems and 9/11 contributed to some of the economic problems. The main reason, though, is that wages have to fall back to that slow steady rate of gain.

 

[edward]

edward, I acknowledged the people percieve themselves to be "underemployed" - my argument that that perception does not reflect the reality of the US economic sitiuation, it simply reflects a growing sense of entitlement and growing number of people going to college because they think they should go to college (not for the sake of learning a specific trade to get a good job).

I guess we could fix this perception problem by offering less student loans - then less people would go to college and they wouldn't be overqualified for their jobs. Personally, I don't think that's the way to go...

I'm sorry, but its no one's responsibility but yours to get you the job you think you deserve. But what I can promise you is that if you (on average) perform as well as your parents, you will do better financially than they did.

Regarding that study from Cal, its a real eye-roller. Its an examination of the social effects of something it takes as gosphel: it isn't an attempt to prove the existence of an underemployment problem, it assumes it exists and discusses its effects.

When an older person who once was a software engineer is now selling shoes, it is much more than a problem of perception Russ. Talk to people Russ.

Cal didn't spend all of that money and energy on a perceived notion. Neither did the Journal of American psychology.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...+workforce+investment+act+underemployed&hl=en

If the problem doesn't exist why was there a Work Force Investment Act passed in 1998? And why is its implementation currently hidden deeply withing the department of Labor?

Can you give me a link that indicates that the outsourcing of American jobs has improved the life of the average American?

 

[outsider]

When an older person who once was a software engineer is now selling shoes, it is much more than a problem of perception Russ. Talk to people Russ.

Cal didn't spend all of that money and energy on a perceived notion. Neither did the Journal of American psychology.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...+workforce+investment+act+underemployed&hl=en

If the problem doesn't exist why was there a Work Force Investment Act passed in 1998? And why is its implementation currently hidden deeply withing the department of Labor?

Can you give me a link that indicates that the outsourcing of American jobs has improved the life of the average American?

I agree that outsourcing is hurting us at the core... but as the weather changes, H2O changes... one day your on top of the clouds... the next your a water droplet... some head to the ground... some head for the ocean... just depends who you are... (we have more control of our destiny than a water molecule...) But we are subject to the conditions in our environment is basically what I'm trying to say... change the environment!

 

[SOS2008]

I don't have time to catch up in this thread at the moment, and I've expressed my concerns regarding trade agreements, illegal immigration, and of course out-sourcing. Two incidents come to mind from personal experience.

I was in the technology industry for a company that provided IT consulting services (my division specialized in Oracle Applications). In the summer before 9-11 we acquired a new customer that did maintenance for the airline industry. Of course 9-11 hit the entire airline industry hard, but with the out-sourcing, this company went out of business all together. The chain reaction continued in that our company also lost them as a customer (and we lost an airline client too). At the same time we lost an important bid to a consulting company that "body shopped" work out to India. Oracle applications is very popular with manufacturing, and all our manufacturing clients were struggling to prevent lay offs and to stay in business let alone invest in IT.

Ultimately my company scaled back the Oracle division to the bare bones. I lost my job along with the many other people in the tech industry, and most of us are now employed beneath our abilities at a fraction of what we used to earn. But don't worry your pretty little heads about these things. I'm sure all your jobs are nice and secure.

 

[edward]

The pink slips and the underemployment are devastating to people. But there is much more to it than that, once an industry is lost it is lost forever.

The health of U.S. aerospace employment also has an affect on our nation’s security. As outsourcing, co-production, and other similar activities grow in the defense aerospace industry, U.S. aerospace employment shrinks. In addition to the direct impact on employment, U.S. dependence on other countries for aerospace defense products presents at least two other issues: first, dependence on other countries for the manufacture, development, or assembly for our defense products is as unacceptable as it is unwise, especially in a post-September 11, 2001 world. What happens when our allies become our enemies? What happens when supply chains become disrupted by unpredictable events? Second, as skilled workers in the defense industry lose their jobs, the deskilling of America’s defense workforce continues at a dramatic rate. If and when we as a country need to rebuild our defense industry, skilled workers vital for the success of such an industry will not be available.

http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_01_04wrts/herrnstadt_owen_wrts.htm

How much of our economy can we afford to give away? It appears that few care and no one is counting. The total industrial losses in the USA are "staggering" yet I can't find a total.

Individual totals for industries can be found, for instance The aerospace industry alone has lost 600,000 skilled jobs since 1990. But the problem is that all industry is linked and interdependent in our economy.

It is a bit like the illegal alien situation, they just keep coming , but how many is too many when no one is counting?

 

[BobG]

Of course 9-11 hit the entire airline industry hard, but with the out-sourcing, this company went out of business all together.

This is the real effect of outsourcing jobs overseas.

Outsourcing of jobs has happened for a long time, whether it's Japanese car companies importing cheaper and better products into the US or whether it's US companies building factories overseas (the only difference is whether the profits are going to an American company or a foreign company). The rate probably increased in the '90's when companies couldn't hire enough qualified employees, especially in the IT field. We just didn't notice it since US wages were rising so fast.

As soon as the economy takes a downturn and there's less jobs available, we start noticing how many jobs are being outsourced. It's not that outsourcing caused the job shortage - it's that outsourcing makes it a little bit worse. Especially if wages were pushed above the normal market value during the boom years - there's more pressure to get out of overinflated wages at least until the market catches back up.

The only real difference is that there are countries that can suck up some of the higher skilled jobs - they didn't always have that capability. Unless they had invested in a good education system for a couple of decades, they were pretty much limited to picking up jobs in unskilled labor. Now, some workers who put quite a bit of effort into acquiring some rare skills and knowledge are finding they're not immune to the ups and downs of the US economy anymore. They're having to compete in a global market just like like the guys in the factories.

The US economy is still the overriding factor into the jobs and wages that are available. Outsourcing has an effect, but watch how the problem 'disappears' as soon as the economy starts adding jobs at its normal pace. Especially if China's and India's economies 'adjust' back to realistic growth rates - economies that grow as fast as their economies are, or even as fast as ours grew in the '90s, tend to see a drastic snap back to reality.

 

[edward]

So, no one believes that underemployment exists. OK But tell me this, is an engineer who is working three partime jobs to make ends meet overemployed?

How do we categorize a person who used to work in a Chrysler engine factory, then lost his job when the new Hemmi factory was built in Saltillo Mexico, and he is now working at Walmart part time and clerking the graveyard shift at a Circle K?

All of the big economic theories are just so much bull to a guy like that. He knows the job he loved is not going to return during the next snap back.

American workers need to have jobs that they can depend on. Without dependable employemt they are not as productive. When we lose our productivity edge, more jobs go off shore. The cycle will then continue until there is nothing left here but Wonderbread, toilet paper, and Coca Cola production.

 

[FredGarvin]

Plain and simple, the types of jobs that existed 20-50 years ago are not around any more. The sooner one realizes that the better. I have had to realize that I need to be extremely flexible with what I expect from my employer now. The climate changes so fast in aerospace that if you have the mentality that many older individuals do, i.e. this is my job, I have done it for so many years, this is how it will be, then you are a dinasaur. My company just went thru two purges and a lot of older folks "retired" mostly because of their refusal to become flexible and to learn new jobs and skills. Granted, a lot were lost simply to reduce headcount. I think that's unavoidable if you don't have the buisiness coming in.

The automotive companies are going through that now. The dim lights are slowly lighting up that the days of wasteful over employment are gone. People that had one very specific job that kept them occupied, maybe, 20-30 hours a week are being hunted down and eliminated. Pretty soon I am hoping the unions follow suit.

 

[russ_watters]

When an older person who once was a software engineer is now selling shoes, it is much more than a problem of perception Russ. Talk to people Russ.

Anecdotal evidence is the biggest fallacy there is, edward. It does not provide an accurate total picture.

Can you give me a link that indicates that the outsourcing of American jobs has improved the life of the average American?

That sort of thing is not a direct corellation. What I have provided is the evidence that it has not resulted in a worstening of the country's overall employment situation. Unemployment is down (long term) and incomes are up (long term). Could it be more better without outsourcing? I don't know, but that's not what I'm trying to prove anyway. What I have shown is that it is not worse, as you seem to believe.

So, no one believes that underemployment exists.

No one said that, edward, because it most certainly does exist. What I'm saying is that it is not the problem you percieve it to be.

Plain and simple, the types of jobs that existed 20-50 years ago are not around any more. The sooner one realizes that the better. I have had to realize that I need to be extremely flexible with what I expect from my employer now.

This is related to one of edward's points earlier. To the 55 year old worker who loses a job because the market has changed, it is unfortunate, but its simply a reality that markets change and that fact cannot be seen as a flaw in the market. Its part luck, part foresight, and part just a planned risk.

Its nice being young (I'm 29), which means I have a lot of options and not a lot of responsibilities, but nevertheless, I'm at the age when it is time to make the decision on where I want to spend the next 30 years of my life. Part of that decision is choosing a field which I think has some stability in it. IT is a field that has had a lot of growth, but also a lot of change. People who pick it choose to take the risk that the industry could change to something other than what it is today. Actually, that it'll change is pretty much guaranteed - the onus is then on the employee choosing to work in the industry to take the responsibility of changing with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Bob, we seem to agree more than we disagree in this thread, but I just wanted to comment on this:

Perception is everything. People can't be blamed for seeing a problem.

Part of the reason I'm a Republican is that I'm not a big fan of perception. Perceptions can be faulty. I prefer to base my opinions/decisions on reality. Now, perhaps that's naive (even idealistic?) of me, and I fully understand that in some things (politics, economics), perception often makes reality, but IMO, that's just because people allow their perceptions to fool them.

Unrelated comments...

If you think Clinton's a miracle worker, you believe that gain was real and should never be given back. If you think he was a lousy president, you salivate at what the economy is going to be like when the next president takes over. If you think he was fair to middling, or even just a little above average, you cringe at what's ahead for the economy.

Actually, I think Clinton sucked, but the internet boom produced a great economy. So while I don't think that kind of growth can be sustained, I'm still quite optomistic for what the next few decades has in store for us.

In fact, a president inheriting a bad economy is probably destined to be a two-term president and a president inheriting a good economy is probably destined to be a one term president

A true irony, that not many people understnd.

 

[outsider]

So, no one believes that underemployment exists. OK But tell me this, is an engineer who is working three partime jobs to make ends meet overemployed?

I believe there is such a thing... it is real but I think that people are resilient, or don't mind a good shafting... it's definitely an issue.

American workers need to have jobs that they can depend on. Without dependable employemt they are not as productive. When we lose our productivity edge, more jobs go off shore. The cycle will then continue until there is nothing left here but Wonderbread, toilet paper, and Coca Cola production.

I guess as an immigrant, I don't take these things for granted. This goes back to a sense of entitlement.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess as an immigrant, I don't take these things for granted. This goes back to a sense of entitlement.

See, this is why I'm such a big fan of immigration. Immigrants often see the opportunities in the US as a gift and don't take them for granted, while many people born here see them as entilements and do take them for granted.

 

[outsider]

See, this is why I'm such a big fan of immigration. Immigrants often see the opportunities in the US as a gift and don't take them for granted, while many people born here see them as entilements and do take them for granted.

but at the same time... the underemployment does exist and I can understand the fear or disatisfaction... the way companies are outsourcing REALLY does affect a lot of people.

What corporations are doing are just saving money so they can increase the bottomline for investors... a lot of people are now gambling and playing the stock market for survival... ironically, it sometimes ends in suicide.

 

[Moonbear]

How do we categorize a person who used to work in a Chrysler engine factory, then lost his job when the new Hemmi factory was built in Saltillo Mexico, and he is now working at Walmart part time and clerking the graveyard shift at a Circle K?

All of the big economic theories are just so much bull to a guy like that. He knows the job he loved is not going to return during the next snap back.

I both agree and disagree with aspects of the point you're making. On the one hand, yes, it's sad to see someone who is skilled at something lose a job they enjoy. On the other hand, there is never a guarantee anyone will get to do a job they love or even train for. It's important to always have a back-up plan. The job market can shift for reasons other than just outsourcing, and people have to learn to roll with the punches. When it comes to outsourcing, we can focus on the people who lost their jobs because of it, or we can focus on the remaining employees who still have a job because of it. Afterall, if a company is struggling to make ends meet, if they can outsource some of their jobs for less and that enables them to remain in business, all their remaining employees have had their job saved by that outsourcing. If they didn't outsource when they can't afford to pay prevailing wages in the US, then the alternative is to go bankrupt or downsize drastically, and a lot more people lose their jobs that way.

American workers need to have jobs that they can depend on. Without dependable employemt they are not as productive. When we lose our productivity edge, more jobs go off shore. The cycle will then continue until there is nothing left here but Wonderbread, toilet paper, and Coca Cola production.

I disagree on this as it goes entirely against my work ethic. No job is guaranteed. It is the responsibility of the worker to ensure their own employment by doing such a good job that it's more cost-effective to keep them than hire 3 more people to replace them. Too many workers nowadays want to do the minimum they can to keep a job, and unions have made it worse. They seem to enforce this idea that you should do no more than exactly what is in your job description. I think it's job insecurity that keeps people productive. Once someone has job security, they slack off.

It's also the worker's responsibility to make sure they are employable. If someone has training in only one job and has never sought to expand their skill set or think about what they would do if they lost that job, then I don't want to hear them crying when they have to go take an unskilled job. Heck, I have a PhD and still have alternative careers in mind...if I can't get a tenure-track position in X number of years, or research funding goes further down the drains and I can't get enough support to keep my research program running, then I have a list of alternative careers that I've researched and have ensured I have the skill sets to break into those if I have to change paths.

I watched on the news today about Northwest Airline's mechanics going on strike. Good thing they have some of the work outsourced so they can continue flying. I wonder if it ever crossed the minds of the mechanics that if they ditched the union and Northwest didn't have to pay all those extra union fees, they might not need to propose cutting salaries to make ends meet. The worker's union stated they would rather see the airline go bankrupt than accept the terms being offered. Well, they may get what they wish for there. How stupid is that? Rather than lose some jobs and take a pay cut, they'd prefer everyone lose their jobs? If you're willing to see the airline go bankrupt rather than take a pay cut, then quit now.

 

[solutions in a box]

Moonbear
I will be repeating a bit of history here so bear with me.

A great number (about 35%) of American workers are over the age of fifty. Making job changes at any age is difficult and it doesn't get any easier with age. Many of us over the age of fifty, the baby boomers, entered a stable work force which for the most part continued stable well into the 1980's.
We had and still do have a great work ethic. Luckily Many companies prefer older workers just for that reason.

By the 1990's we were told that the economy was to become a service economy. Millions of us lost good paying manual skilled labor jobs, machinists ect., and went back to school for more training.

Now the current trend is to outsource the very jobs that we retrained to perform. It is stressful beyond
belief that we must once again start looking for jobs in a tight job market.

The current market doesn't even pay as much as we were earning 15 years ago in industrial jobs.

Considering that this country was built on the backs of the common working person. A lot of CEO's and other executive types got a free ride to the top. Yet now tend to forget about the workers in favor of the bottom line. When was the last time A CEO took a pay cut?

I don't think a PHD can really connect with the average American worker. For one thing most of the higher educated people, with a few exceptions, have many more options in the work place. When all else fails you can always teach.

At this point those of us who are approaching retirement age are just struggling for survival for a few more years by taking any work we can find.

Those a bit younger must once again retrain for something, but what?? The manufacturing jobs are long gone, and the technical and semi technical jobs are being rapidly outsourced. Call for road service, and you will be talking to a guy in India!


Lastly, where is this all heading? The markets have changed so much, especially in the last five years, and so fast that we don't have economic models that have kept up. Even fairly recent employment statistical data is based on models from the early 90's.

Nothing that we have in any university textbook can really predict what the current and future global markets may bring crashing down on us. Yet we dive right in without making sure that there is enough water in the pool.

 

[outsider]

Now the current trend is to outsource the very jobs that we retrained to perform. It is stressful beyond
belief that we must once again start looking for jobs in a tight job market.

Companies are not expanding onshore anymore... and if so, they are just not big enough to go global yet. Small companies is the way to go right now, but with globalization taking over... the superstore companies are eating up a big piece of the pie.

Considering that this country was built on the backs of the common working person. A lot of CEO's and other executive types got a free ride to the top. Yet now tend to forget about the workers in favor of the bottom line. When was the last time A CEO took a pay cut?

even when they do, they will try to make it up somewhere else... there's more than 1 way to skin a cat as they say

I don't think a PHD can really connect with the average American worker. For one thing most of the higher educated people, with a few exceptions, have many more options in the work place. When all else fails you can always teach.

but there may often, also, be a sense of entitlement that goes along with a doctorate. However, if you are smart enough and have this type of perseverance to get a PHD, it is unlikely that you don't have the resourcefulness to survive in any market.

At this point those of us who are approaching retirement age are just struggling for survival for a few more years by taking any work we can find.

I can definitely see this around me. Some people just suck it up. But what if there is war in your backyard? Wouldn't that be far worse? Things could be worse.

Those a bit younger must once again retrain for something, but what?? The manufacturing jobs are long gone, and the technical and semi technical jobs are being rapidly outsourced. Call for road service, and you will be talking to a guy in India!

Lastly, where is this all heading? The markets have changed so much, especially in the last five years, and so fast that we don't have economic models that have kept up. Even fairly recent employment statistical data is based on models from the early 90's.

Nothing that we have in any university textbook can really predict what the current and future global markets may bring crashing down on us. Yet we dive right in without making sure that there is enough water in the pool.

all valid... and I've had similar thoughts myself.

 

[Moonbear]

It is stressful beyond
belief that we must once again start looking for jobs in a tight job market.

Maybe it's just that the over-50 generation got spoiled with too much job security early on. I guess my generation is quite accustomed to the idea that no job is permanent. You can't expect companies to all stay open forever or for nothing to change.

Considering that this country was built on the backs of the common working person. A lot of CEO's and other executive types got a free ride to the top. Yet now tend to forget about the workers in favor of the bottom line. When was the last time A CEO took a pay cut?

But the bottom line is everything in business. It's not forgetting about the workers, it's doing what makes economic sense for the company to make money. If they are going to lose money by losing workers, they won't do that, but if they can hire people to do the job for less, they will. Who wouldn't? Why would a CEO take a pay cut? They made it to the top and that's why you struggle and work the 90 hour weeks and don't take vacations and have kids who don't know who you are, so you can climb to the top. Do you really think the CEO just sits around a cushy office all day and does no work?

I don't think a PHD can really connect with the average American worker. For one thing most of the higher educated people, with a few exceptions, have many more options in the work place. When all else fails you can always teach.

That just shows you know nothing about me and my background to know who I can and cannot connect with. Your view is very much a "grass is greener on the other side" view. Do you think someone just waltzes into a high school and gets a job teaching? Usually, we make more options for ourselves by being prepared that we might not be able to work at our dream job, and we make more options for ourselves by being willing to travel across the country for a job, and we make more options for ourselves by working our ***es off and sacrificing our personal lives and running ourselves to the brink of poverty while young so we can secure an education that will provide us with a better future, and we know that's still not a guarantee of anything. Right now, the lab that I work in is getting ready to move to Canada. I'm not sitting here crying a river over it, I got on the phone the moment I knew what needed to be done and found another lab to move to, and that means moving to another state. I'll be there in a week and a half. Now, I have a step-brother who kept himself employed as a factory worker because he was willing to move across country too. My step-father had worked for over 20 years as a mechanic, and when the dealership he worked for closed due to the death of the owner, he couldn't find another job as a mechanic, so he got a job as a truck driver. You adapt. On the other hand, I have a brother-in-law who is sitting around moping because he can't find a job he likes while my sister supports him because he isn't willing to commute an hour to work and doesn't like the hours he has to work for jobs that are closer. I don't know what job he thinks is going to magically appear close to home. So, he's trained as a chef and working in a department store selling suits. I guess he falls into that "under-employed" category, but to me, that's entirely his own fault. There's no shortage of chef's jobs (though I personally think he was lucky to have had the one he left because I don't think he's very good at what he does and needs a reality check there), but he's unwilling to move to where they are.

At this point those of us who are approaching retirement age are just struggling for survival for a few more years by taking any work we can find.

Yes, you do what you have to do.

Those a bit younger must once again retrain for something, but what?? The manufacturing jobs are long gone, and the technical and semi technical jobs are being rapidly outsourced. Call for road service, and you will be talking to a guy in India!

Go into construction, drive a truck, become a plumber or a security guard, or go into roofing in FL. If you don't want to take chances working for someone else, save everything you can and start your own business in any of these lines of work and do residential work. You can't outsource plumbing repair to India and it's a good paying business, especially if you do mostly residential work for all the executives who don't have time to fix stuff themselves. Or you look through the paper and see where the job openings are and get yourself trained to do something that people are hiring for. And you don't wait until you lose your job to start thinking about what your next job will be. If you're working in a factory, start thinking about what happens if that factory closes. Even in a good economy, if everyone from the same factory is suddenly on the job market all at once, it's going to be tough to find another equivalent job locally. So, plan ahead. What else is available locally, where else might you be willing to move, what sort of training would you need to get a different job? Use your weekends to get a trucking license, or go to night classes to learn some other trade, or study for the civil service exam so you can work for the post office or join the police academy or become a firefighter.

Nothing that we have in any university textbook can really predict what the current and future global markets may bring crashing down on us. Yet we dive right in without making sure that there is enough water in the pool.

Nobody can predict the future, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone can. People always fear new things. And, you know what, it may be for good reason. All this outsourcing could cripple the economy. If enough people can't find work, and thus can't buy stuff, all those companies outsourcing will be the cause of their own downfall when they go bankrupt because they have no customers. Or, people will move out of the US and to the other countries where the jobs are. People immigrated here for work, and they can emigrate for work. In the sciences, we already do this when we have to. People doing stem cell research have moved to the UK where they can do their work without the hassle of US government regulations. On the other hand, animal rights groups have gotten out of hand in the UK, so people who got tired of spending their whole day filling out paperwork instead of doing experiments have moved to the US or to Australia or to South Africa (I personally know people who have made moves to each of those locations). As I mentioned, the lab I work in is moving to Canada. I chose not to move with them, but if I didn't have other options, it would have been a foolish choice to stay in the US and I'd have nobody to blame but myself if I had to settle for something less because I was too stubborn to move where the work is.

 

[edward]

Maybe it's just that the over-50 generation got spoiled with too much job security early on. I guess my generation is quite accustomed to the idea that no job is permanent. You can't expect companies to all stay open forever or for nothing to change.

Spoiled is a very poor choice of words to describe America's older generation of workers. I don't know your age. But I do know that unless you have worked 12 hr. days machining parts for military aircraft, you really aren't qualified to make that judgement.

But the bottom line is everything in business. It's not forgetting about the workers, it's doing what makes economic sense for the company to make money. If they are going to lose money by losing workers, they won't do that, but if they can hire people to do the job for less, they will. Who wouldn't? Why would a CEO take a pay cut? They made it to the top and that's why you struggle and work the 90 hour weeks and don't take vacations and have kids who don't know who you are, so you can climb to the top. Do you really think the CEO just sits around a cushy office all day and does no work?

From what I have read, American CEO's are grossly overpaid for what they do compared to CEO's in other countries. Perhaps it is the CEO's who are spoiled by first being overcompensated, and then running a company into the dirt and getting away with it. Doing what is best for the current bottom line isn't necessarily best for the future of a company. GM has only recently discoverd that aspect. They looked only at the bottom line and stockholder satisfaction, when they should have been updating their product line and producing higher quality vehicles.

That just shows you know nothing about me and my background to know who I can and cannot connect with. Your view is very much a "grass is greener on the other side" view. Do you think someone just waltzes into a high school and gets a job teaching? Usually, we make more options for ourselves by being prepared that we might not be able to work at our dream job, and we make more options for ourselves by being willing to travel across the country for a job, and we make more options for ourselves by working our ***es off and sacrificing our personal lives and running ourselves to the brink of poverty while young so we can secure an education that will provide us with a better future, and we know that's still not a guarantee of anything. Right now, the lab that I work in is getting ready to move to Canada. I'm not sitting here crying a river over it, I got on the phone the moment I knew what needed to be done and found another lab to move to, and that means moving to another state. I'll be there in a week and a half. Now, I have a step-brother who kept himself employed as a factory worker because he was willing to move across country too. My step-father had worked for over 20 years as a mechanic, and when the dealership he worked for closed due to the death of the owner, he couldn't find another job as a mechanic, so he got a job as a truck driver. You adapt. On the other hand, I have a brother-in-law who is sitting around moping because he can't find a job he likes while my sister supports him because he isn't willing to commute an hour to work and doesn't like the hours he has to work for jobs that are closer. I don't know what job he thinks is going to magically appear close to home. So, he's trained as a chef and working in a department store selling suits. I guess he falls into that "under-employed" category, but to me, that's entirely his own fault. There's no shortage of chef's jobs (though I personally think he was lucky to have had the one he left because I don't think he's very good at what he does and needs a reality check there), but he's unwilling to move to where they are.

I won't even touch that one except to say as far as your brother in law is concerened ,"there is one in every family" And the last I heard their was a teacher shortage.

Go into construction, drive a truck, become a plumber or a security guard, or go into roofing in FL. If you don't want to take chances working for someone else, save everything you can and start your own business in any of these lines of work and do residential work. You can't outsource plumbing repair to India and it's a good paying business, especially if you do mostly residential work for all the executives who don't have time to fix stuff themselves. Or you look through the paper and see where the job openings are and get yourself trained to do something that people are hiring for. And you don't wait until you lose your job to start thinking about what your next job will be. If you're working in a factory, start thinking about what happens if that factory closes. Even in a good economy, if everyone from the same factory is suddenly on the job market all at once, it's going to be tough to find another equivalent job locally. So, plan ahead. What else is available locally, where else might you be willing to move, what sort of training would you need to get a different job? Use your weekends to get a trucking license, or go to night classes to learn some other trade, or study for the civil service exam so you can work for the post office or join the police academy or become a firefighter.

People over 50 have already done these things several times over. And SIAB was right, it is stressful to retrain and start looking again, and even more so the second and third time around. At the rate the current job situation is changing, even the younger generation will be suffering from PTSD by age 35. If America wants to stay on top its work force must be on top.

Nobody can predict the future, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone can. People always fear new things. And, you know what, it may be for good reason. All this outsourcing could cripple the economy.

Why do we have to wait for this to happen. Weren't you just talking about planning ahead? Why can't a country plan ahead for it's economy and its workers? Could it perhaps be because the country's government is dominated by big business?

If enough people can't find work, and thus can't buy stuff, all those companies outsourcing will be the cause of their own downfall when they go bankrupt because they have no customers.

But is the American worker and the American economy which will suffer the most. Many companies who have filed for bankruptcy have risen out of the ashes only to start using the same old failed policies again.

Or, people will move out of the US and to the other countries where the jobs are. People immigrated here for work, and they can emigrate for work. In the sciences, we already do this when we have to. People doing stem cell research have moved to the UK where they can do their work without the hassle of US government regulations. On the other hand, animal rights groups have gotten out of hand in the UK, so people who got tired of spending their whole day filling out paperwork instead of doing experiments have moved to the US or to Australia or to South Africa (I personally know people who have made moves to each of those locations). As I mentioned, the lab I work in is moving to Canada. I chose not to move with them, but if I didn't have other options, it would have been a foolish choice to stay in the US and I'd have nobody to blame but myself if I had to settle for something less because I was too stubborn to move where the work is.

All I can say to that is: This is not the same America I grew up and originally prospered in. I doubt that there will be many older blue collar workers moving to South Africa or anywhere else to gain employment. Of course from your point of view it would be their fault for missing out on an opportunity. Perhaps you are a bit out of touch with the working class.

 

[loseyourname]

Or she could just be self-motivated and have the initiative to take control of her future into her own hands, rather than expect the government to insure it for her. Like it or not, business owners have the right to spend their money where they please. Labor is a commodity like any other. When was the last time you paid ten times the price for the same good just to help out your countrymen? If businesses continued to pay the higher wages of American skilled workers rather than go overseas, they'd either have to eliminate jobs or raise prices to maintain their profit margins. Either way, somebody loses out and somebody has a sob story to tell. As much as CEOs make, there is only one per company and their salary represents very little of a company's total expenditures. Even if they took a massive pay-cut, that doesn't mean there would suddenly be a ton of money with which to raise everyone else's wages.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do we have to wait for this to happen. Weren't you just talking about planning ahead? Why can't a country plan ahead for it's economy and its workers? Could it perhaps be because the country's government is dominated by big business?

The citizens are the country, edward! The citizens decide things like a Camry is better than a Taurus. The citizens who are in Northwest's union decide that the union itself is more important than their jobs (there is a reason unions are dwindling - people are realizing how absurd they are). Its the citizens who dictate the market for both jobs and products and companies respond to that, not the other way around.

There is a great South Park episode about how evil Wal Mart is. We hear about it all the time. Wal Mart kills small businesses. Wal Mart sells crappy products. Etc, etc. Well they didn't become the king by accident: people buy their products.

edit: Btw, the USSR tried a centrally planned economy...I'd prefer we didn't follow their lead.

But is the American worker and the American economy which will suffer the most. Many companies who have filed for bankruptcy have risen out of the ashes only to start using the same old failed policies again.

And for all that, incomes are high and unemployment is low. The economy is working just fine, your perceptions to the contrary.

All I can say to that is: This is not the same America I grew up and originally prospered in.

That's true. You seem to be implying that that's a bad thing...

I have less job security than my dad did. I also have more job freedom than he did. In the past, companies practically owned their employees. Not anymore, and that is a tradeoff that I consider a positive one.

 

[Smurf]

Just because the USSR had a centralized economy does not mean anywhere with a centralized economy will be the USSR.

 

[Moonbear]

Spoiled is a very poor choice of words to describe America's older generation of workers. I don't know your age. But I do know that unless you have worked 12 hr. days machining parts for military aircraft, you really aren't qualified to make that judgement.

What does that have anything to do with my qualification to make any judgement? Are you suggesting I have never gotten my hands dirty or worked up a sweat or worked long hours, and that disqualifies me from determining someone might have gotten spoiled with such a long spell of job security? I don't see how it would be a disqualification, but if it matters to you so much, my research all involves farm animals, and I've done my share of shoveling sh*t, herding sheep and goats, dragging water buckets out to pastures in the dead of winter, arriving to work at 2 AM in an ice storm because the experiment had to be done and animals needed to be fed, collecting blood samples from sheep every 5 minutes for 8 hours at a time, or every hour for 24 to 72 hours at a time. I've slept on barn floors so I could catch a half hour nap in order to keep going another 12 hours. We spend 9 hours standing for surgeries and then spend another 2 hours scrubbing the OR from top to bottom because nobody else does it for us. I've been kicked and stepped on and knocked on my butt in filthy pens, even hobbled around for 2 hours AFTER spraining my ankle out at the barns because I wasn't done doing what needed doing. And I'm not complaining. The past 3 years I've been spoiled by not having to do that on a regular basis, and I'm looking forward to my new job and getting my hands dirty again.

From what I have read, American CEO's are grossly overpaid for what they do compared to CEO's in other countries. Perhaps it is the CEO's who are spoiled by first being overcompensated, and then running a company into the dirt and getting away with it. Doing what is best for the current bottom line isn't necessarily best for the future of a company. GM has only recently discoverd that aspect. They looked only at the bottom line and stockholder satisfaction, when they should have been updating their product line and producing higher quality vehicles.

It seems a little odd that you complain about jobs being outsourced to other countries because people work for less there and then try to make comparisons between wages of other countries to use that as evidence CEOs are overcompensated. By that same reasoning, all those workers whose jobs are being outsourced are overpaid too. Updating a product line is better for the bottom line too. Your examples aren't of what's better or worse for the bottom line, but what's going to bring in short-term profit vs long-term profit. Sure, some CEOs should get canned when they do a bad job, just like anyone else should get canned when they do a bad job. That doesn't mean they're all doing a bad job just because you can cite some examples where someone made bad decisions for their company.

And the last I heard their was a teacher shortage.

Sure, and a teacher's union that seems to like keeping it that way. I'm not joking. I'm can teach at the university level, and I can teach med students, and I can teach grad students (for all of which there are few job openings), but I would be required to do "student teaching" and take additional courses to be certified to teach high school biology, despite being more qualified than most of the high school teachers currently teaching the subject. That's not to say I wouldn't do it if I found myself unemployed, but I'd prefer to do something that didn't require having to resort to living on an unemployment check for a year or two while satisfying the certification requirements when there are other things I could do right away and for better pay.

People over 50 have already done these things several times over. And SIAB was right, it is stressful to retrain and start looking again, and even more so the second and third time around. At the rate the current job situation is changing, even the younger generation will be suffering from PTSD by age 35. If America wants to stay on top its work force must be on top.

I know you were saying it a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but life is stressful. Anyone who thinks they are going to coast through life without ups and downs and periods of stress is being pretty unrealistic. I was told very early on that most people change careers about 3 times in their lifetime. Sure, it's a bit more stressful when it was someone else's decision and not yours that it's time to change, but ultimately, the outcome is the same anyway.

Why do we have to wait for this to happen. Weren't you just talking about planning ahead? Why can't a country plan ahead for it's economy and its workers? Could it perhaps be because the country's government is dominated by big business?

It's because we don't know that will be the outcome. It could also not come to that. If your concern is that government is dominated by big business, then vote for someone else, but it's rather hard to find someone who will defend our capitalistic economy and simultaneously be in favor of restricting big business. If you don't like what a company is doing, vote with your dollars and don't buy from them.

But is the American worker and the American economy which will suffer the most. Many companies who have filed for bankruptcy have risen out of the ashes only to start using the same old failed policies again.

Well, there's no law against being lousy at what you do and going out of business. A lot of businesses try and fail. That has little to do with the outsourcing debate. But, when big corporations fail, and there's suddenly an open space in the market, it gives some of the small and mid-sized companies an opportunity to grow and fill that gap.

All I can say to that is: This is not the same America I grew up and originally prospered in.

No, it's not. That's one of the beauties of this country, that it changes, adapts, and new opportunities arise for new people all the time. We don't have to stick to doing something only one way just because it's always been done that way.

I doubt that there will be many older blue collar workers moving to South Africa or anywhere else to gain employment. Of course from your point of view it would be their fault for missing out on an opportunity.

As for moving to other countries, I mentioned that in response to the question of what YOUNGER workers would be doing, not the older workers. But, they don't have to go all the way to South Africa. There are a lot of people who are not even willing to move to another state for a job. And it annoys the heck out of me when I hear that there are jobs we supposedly need to give to ILLEGAL immigrants because no Americans will do them. If you're unemployed, and have NO job, and there is a job available, you do it, even if it's only temporary while you continue looking for something better.

Perhaps you are a bit out of touch with the working class.

Why, because I worked my butt off to create options for myself and don't sit around taking the "I'm a victim of the big, evil, corporate CEOs" attitude?