I really see no hope for employment in the US

[chemisttree]

Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

Interesting the reasons Abbott give. I thought the health care legislation was supposed to save jobs? I guess the laid off workers are thankful that Obama has fixed the health care situation and they can keep their current coverage.

We'll all be equal soon...

The Associated Press reports that Abbott Laboratories will eliminate 1,900 employees to keep profits up. The maker of drugs and devices said the terminations involve U.S. marketing and manufacturing positions. The cuts, which represent about 2 percent of the company's workforce, are expected to save the company $200 million annually in coming years. Abbott blamed the cuts on new fees and pricing pressures associated with the health reform law and a challenging regulatory environment at the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs.

 

[CAC1001]

There actually isn't

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

Every empirical study that I've seen says that there is a lot less class mobility in the US than in Scandinavia. If you have any data that says different, I'd like to see it.

Center for American Progress is a left-leaning think tank, so their data could be biased. But that aside, reality disputes their conclusion. The United States has incredible mobility. You can start at the bottom and rise to the top and you can go from the top to the bottom in American society very quickly if you aren't careful.

 

[CAC1001]

The study I linked to (and others like it) disagrees. What data do you have to support your conjecture?

The study is from an organization with an agenda. IMO, reality disputes it. I think it is blatantly obvious that income mobility is very high in a country like America. There is no fixed class system in this country as some may try to claim. We don't have a fixed class of poor, of middle, of rich. We have income brackets. Many of today's "rich" were "poor" ten or twenty years ago.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The study is from an organization with an agenda. IMO, reality disputes it. I think it is blatantly obvious that income mobility is very high in a country like America. There is no fixed class system in this country as some may try to claim. We don't have a fixed class of poor, of middle, of rich. We have income brackets. Many of today's "rich" were "poor" ten or twenty years ago.

If its so obvious, then please, provide some data. Certainly, the American dream is high mobility, but how well are we living up to the dream? Every study I am aware of suggests the US has less mobility than (for instance) Scandinavian countries. I think the point of the studies linked to is that most of today's rich were slightly less rich ten or twenty years ago.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe data showing low mobility in the US is accurate. But what it can't measure is OPPORTUNITY for mobility.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I believe data showing low mobility in the US is accurate. But what it can't measure is OPPORTUNITY for mobility.

What do you mean? I would think actual mobility and "opportunity for mobility" should be at least linearly related? How can a country have more "opportunity for mobility" and not also have more mobility?

 

[russ_watters]

They will always be different because a huge fraction of people won't take advantage of the opportunity. A huge fraction of the population chooses not to finish high school, a choice that leads to lower income.

 

[mheslep]

...
Systems based on the abolition of private property just don't work. So it's obvious that you need some role for private property and markets. It's also clear to me that systems that have no government intervention just don't work.

Basically, I *think* the difference is that I consider property rights a *means* whereas you consider property rights to be an *end*.

There is a school of thought (Austrian economics and libertarian philosophy) that argues that a society with minimal governmental interference leads to maximum prosperity. The idea is that if you have a system of property rights, then pretty much everyone will end up with a job and a house in the end. This is an idea that I respect, and if it turns out that the Austrians are right and minimal government and strong contract rights is in fact the way to get everyone a job, then sign me up.

I don't see how the above statement lives within the same viewpoint that earlier produced:

...
Any economic and political system that requires people to be saints is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure that Communism would work fine if you could find Party bureaucrats that were totally non-corrupt and completely ethical, but those people are rare, and people that are really self-sacrificing tend not to get into positions of power...

since the latter abolishes property rights, saintly Party bosses or not.

 

[ParticleGrl]

They will always be different because a huge fraction of people won't take advantage of the opportunity. A huge fraction of the population chooses not to finish high school, a choice that leads to lower income.

Different, but I would think proportional. I see no reason to believe (for instance) that the US population takes less advantage of opportunity than the populations of the Scandinavian countries.

 

[mheslep]

On the subject mobility, note that Resnick originally qualified his point thus

.
Another advantageous aspect of american society is the lack of an explicit caste structure and ruling class- cynicism aside, there is an incredible amount of upward (and downward) mobility in US society.

[highlights mine]
Social class, or caste, is not the same thing as economic mobility though I grant they are certainly related. With respect to actual barriers presented by social class/caste, it appears to me entirely obvious that the US is second to absolutely no other country, at least among the many countries I've visited, and what appears obvious from not only US history but current events.

I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?_r=1

 

[CAC1001]

I'm sure that Communism would work fine if you could find Party bureaucrats that were totally non-corrupt and completely ethical, but those people are rare, and people that are really self-sacrificing tend not to get into positions of power...

Communism wouldn't work fine even if every member of the government had a heart of gold. Even if completely non-corrupt, no government can centrally coordinate an economy. What you would see, however, is a total lack of corruption within said centrally-planned system.

Remember, a market economy has millions of prices. Whenever one price changes, essentially all the other millions of prices must change in relation to that one price change. So you have millions of prices constantly fluctuating all in relation to one another. Trying to centrally calculate this is impossible.

 

[russ_watters]

Different, but I would think proportional.

By that you mean the same discrepancy in every country?:

I see no reason to believe (for instance) that the US population takes less advantage of opportunity than the populations of the Scandinavian countries.

Well, would you agree that the biggest opportunity provided to us by our government is 12 years of free education? The US is far behind most other western countries in completion of that free education and that is almost entirely by personal choice:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653

Country: Graduation Rate:
United States: 72%
Finland: 91%
Denmark: 96%
Sweden: 71%

Not sure what Sweden's problem is...

So I think it is instructive that on average, the children of immigrants do do better than their parents:

This paper documents the evidence on social mobility in the immigrant population and summarizes some of the lessons implied by the evidence. There is significant economic "catching up" between the first and second generations, with the relative wage of the second generation being, on average, about 5 to 10 percent higher than that of the first generation.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12088
They come here for the opportunity and they take advantage of it.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Well, it should be obvious that if you are a newly arrived immigrant with a few pennies in your pocket, your children will end up richer than you. Now, what happens to the 3rd and 4th generations?

Actually, that is irrelevant. Remember, a bunch of people aged 55 to 65 will retire and die in the next 10 - 30 years. Plenty of employment and opportunity once these people disappear. The US will be fine in the long-run.

 

[Gokul43201]

Have you applied for these jobs before? In my experience, teaching universities want people with teaching experience. Most of the people I know who went the small liberal arts route worked as adjuncts and lecturers rather than doing traditional postdocs. More research isn't going to make you a better teacher. Also, keep in mind that while there are a lot of liberal arts colleges, not many of them need a lot of physics professors.

I agree, and should have worded my response better. I have not personally applied for a position at a liberal arts school or small college/university yet, but so far I've been very fortunate in landing exactly what I wanted.

I have however, had a few colleagues who have. I know one person, who decided about 6 months her first postdoc, that she preferred a teaching job to one with no teaching at all. She left, and began teaching at a liberal arts school in less than a year after starting the postdoc. I know two other postdocs who were having a hard time finding a position (this was a little over a year ago, when universities were on shoestring budgets), until they started applying to faculty positions at 4-year colleges (I believe both involved research responsibilities). One of them accepted the position, the other shortly landed a second postdoc and took that instead. I know more postdocs (all within cond mat) who I believe had landed, but not necessarily accepted, faculty positions in universities with grad programs that are not typically ranked in the top 50, but still have a significant research focus (and there are hundreds of such schools).

 

[WhoWee]

Well, it should be obvious that if you are a newly arrived immigrant with a few pennies in your pocket, your children will end up richer than you. Now, what happens to the 3rd and 4th generations?

Given the recent popularity of the "death tax" - it's hard to predict - isn't it?

 

[Mathnomalous]

Given the recent popularity of the "death tax" - it's hard to predict - isn't it?

The estate tax is irrelevant.

The real transfer of wealth from one generation to another happens in real time: better house, better food, better education, etc. that places the younger generation on a higher rung than the older generation. In real terms, people today are better off than their immigrant ancestors. That is why that issue is irrelevant.

The issue here is that those early immigrants had immediate access to opportunity; they got off the boat and found a job because most jobs required manual labor back then; little or not school required, certainly no college. Today, people need to complete more steps to get access to those opportunities; high school -> undergraduate -> grad/professional school. And like Mr. Watters commented, many people choose not to go through that process.

Not to mention, many of the industries of the past are closed off to most of today's entrepreneurs. Want to start a car company today? Either find a niche like Tesla Motors, or good luck competing against GM, Toyota, etc. The opportunities of today are in the Wild Wild West of the Internet.

Edit: I'd like to mention, social mobility is a literal pyramid scam. We would be better off with less social mobility and more (downward) technological mobility.

 

[WhoWee]

The estate tax is irrelevant.

The real transfer of wealth from one generation to another happens in real time: better house, better food, better education, etc. that places the younger generation on a higher rung than the older generation. In real terms, people today are better off than their immigrant ancestors. That is why that issue is irrelevant.

The issue here is that those early immigrants had immediate access to opportunity; they got off the boat and found a job because most jobs required manual labor back then; little or not school required, certainly no college. Today, people need to complete more steps to get access to those opportunities; high school -> undergraduate -> grad/professional school. And like Mr. Watters commented, many people choose not to go through that process.

Not to mention, many of the industries of the past are closed off to most of today's entrepreneurs. Want to start a car company today? Either find a niche like Tesla Motors, or good luck competing against GM, Toyota, etc. The opportunities of today are in the Wild Wild West of the Internet.

Edit: I'd like to mention, social mobility is a literal pyramid scam. We would be better off with less social mobility and more (downward) technological mobility.

If we limit the discussion to employment - I (mostly) agree.

However, business is considered to be on-going. Iif a family has built a business and future generations continues to grow that business - it could provide and enable several generations to exceed expectations of the previous generations.

 

[ParticleGrl]

would you agree that the biggest opportunity provided to us by our government is 12 years of free education? The US is far behind most other western countries in completion of that free education and that is almost entirely by personal choice...

Thats interesting data. I wonder if differing social support structures can explain at least some of the discrepancies? Does anyone know?

As an anecdote, a friend of the family had to drop out of high school in order to work to offset the cost of his mother's medical bills. He went back to school a few years later after she had passed away. Does anyone know if there is data about how access to affordable health care correlates with completion of secondary education?

 

[Proton Soup]

education here is not just free, it's generally compulsory, too. I'm not sure why we don't just eliminate the dropout option.

 

[Zarqon]

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653

Country: Graduation Rate:
United States: 72%
Finland: 91%
Denmark: 96%
Sweden: 71%

Not sure what Sweden's problem is...

Interesting. Eventhough I didn't check for statistics to back it up right now, the first thing I thought of which Sweden and the US has in common, but not denmark or finland, is High immigration. For the past 20 years or so Sweden has received the highest amount of immigrants per capita in all of europe, last time I checked, and this is much higher than both denmark and finland who both have heavy restrictions on immigration. The lower education completions can be explained not only by the immigrants themselves, but also becaues they tend to cluster up in a few places, which causes higher social unrest at those places. I'm guessing the situation is similar in the US with the hispanic immigration.


(disclaimer, I'm not at all a racist, I just acknowledge that integration of foreign people into a, to their eyes, strange society, is a difficult problem)

 

[azzkika]

I agree, that efforts to restrict legal immigration should be resisted.

The Us should be careful not to copy the UKs policy which has seen many indigenous people become minorities and live in places no longer recognisable as English and where English is a secondary language. Multiculturalism has resulted in the alientaion of the English in their own country and gang and knife culture rocket. you do not want to have many estates having "No white after 8 o'clock" posters on your lamposts and not be able to walk around safely in many parts.

 

[russ_watters]

Thats interesting data. I wonder if differing social support structures can explain at least some of the discrepancies? Does anyone know?

It almost certainly explains almost all of it: kids tend to achieve what their parents achieve. Ie, if the parents didn't finish school, the kids probably won't either.

 

[WhoWee]

education here is not just free, it's generally compulsory, too. I'm not sure why we don't just eliminate the dropout option.

Safety concerns in the school?

 

[vici10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex"

The statement by ParticleGrl was "middle class income has been stagnant." The source I reference speaks directly to that statement, to individual income.

ParticleGirl is not that wrong about the wages being stagnant, even without relation to productivity gains. If one looks at the statistics from "Economic Report of the President" 2010, one can see that from 1979 till 1996 the average hourly earnings were declining. And from 1973 -2009 the wages still were less than in 1972.

The table from the report is bellow.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/economic-report-president.pdf" (Table B-47)

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks for that link, vici. I've been meaning to look for such data for a while now, but never quite remembered to do it when I was near a computer.

 

[CAC1001]

The middle-class is not stagnant. Incomes per capita have been increasing for decades. Wages are part of incomes, but they are not the sole measure of a person's income. Wages can be stagnant or declining while incomes per capita can continue increasing. Household incomes can be stagnant as well, while incomes per capita continue to increase.

The likely reason for stalled wages is due to the rising cost of healthcare, which is absorbing more and more of a person's income, so even though incomes are increasing, the portion of income going to wages is stalled or declining.

This chart shows incomes per capita from 1990: http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

 

[ParticleGrl]

The middle-class is not stagnant. Incomes per capita have been increasing for decades.

Per capita income is a useless statistic for this argument. It says nothing about what the middle class takes home. Imagine I live on an island with only one other person, call him Steve. Let's say Steve makes $2 billion a year from off-island investments, and uses his 2 billion to fly in all sorts of food and technology. I, on the other hand, make nothing, and live off Steve's leftovers. In this situation, our per capita income is $1 billion, but it says nothing about the disparity between Steve and myself. In particular, if next year Steve makes $3 billion, our per-capita income is now $1.5 billion. Did your lower class income increase? No, I still made nothing. Per capita income can yell you nothing about individual earning quintiles.

Now, what DOES per-capita income tell you? It tells you about country's standard of living. Even though I make nothing, the presence of Steve means I might have one of this left over computers when he replaces it and throws it out, etc. The standard of living on the island is much higher because of the presence of that wealth.

Wages are part of incomes, but they are not the sole measure of a person's income. Wages can be stagnant or declining while incomes per capita can continue increasing.

In the case of the US, the majority of income growth has come from the upper 10%. Middle class incomes are somewhat stagnant(especially relative to productivity), while the upper class has seen huge growth.

 

[WhoWee]

Per capita income is a useless statistic for this argument. It says nothing about what the middle class takes home. Imagine I live on an island with only one other person, call him Steve. Let's say Steve makes $2 billion a year from off-island investments, and uses his 2 billion to fly in all sorts of food and technology. I, on the other hand, make nothing, and live off Steve's leftovers. In this situation, our per capita income is $1 billion, but it says nothing about the disparity between Steve and myself. In particular, if next year Steve makes $3 billion, our per-capita income is now $1.5 billion. Did your lower class income increase? No, I still made nothing. Per capita income can yell you nothing about individual earning quintiles.

Now, what DOES per-capita income tell you? It tells you about country's standard of living. Even though I make nothing, the presence of Steve means I might have one of this left over computers when he replaces it and throws it out, etc. The standard of living on the island is much higher because of the presence of that wealth.

In the case of the US, the majority of income growth has come from the upper 10%. Middle class incomes are somewhat stagnant(especially relative to productivity), while the upper class has seen huge growth.

I see 2 solutions for you.

1.) Cut Steve's grass, wash his cars, walk his dogs, pilot his boat, cut his hair, cook his food, and any other service Steve needs and is willing to pay the going rate for - which the shortage of labor should increase.

2.) Divorce Steve and take half of his money.

 

[CAC1001]

Per capita income is a useless statistic for this argument. It says nothing about what the middle class takes home. Imagine I live on an island with only one other person, call him Steve. Let's say Steve makes $2 billion a year from off-island investments, and uses his 2 billion to fly in all sorts of food and technology. I, on the other hand, make nothing, and live off Steve's leftovers. In this situation, our per capita income is $1 billion, but it says nothing about the disparity between Steve and myself. In particular, if next year Steve makes $3 billion, our per-capita income is now $1.5 billion. Did your lower class income increase? No, I still made nothing. Per capita income can yell you nothing about individual earning quintiles.

Now, what DOES per-capita income tell you? It tells you about country's standard of living. Even though I make nothing, the presence of Steve means I might have one of this left over computers when he replaces it and throws it out, etc. The standard of living on the island is much higher because of the presence of that wealth.

Yes, if the population consisted of very poor people and very rich people and that was it, with no middle-income earners, then per capita is probably bad to go by. But per capita income is an indicator of the average standard of living of individuals in the country.

Generally, as per capita income increases, the country's standard of living increases, in particular among the middle-income earners considering the standard of living of the average middle-income person today is far higher than it was in the past.

In the case of the US, the majority of income growth has come from the upper 10%. Middle class incomes are somewhat stagnant(especially relative to productivity), while the upper class has seen huge growth.

Remember though that there is no such thing as an "upper-class" or "middle-class" in America, there are just income quintiles, statistical categories. People move into and out of these statistical categories all the time, which makes comparing ratios between them inaccurate.

It is true that the amount and proportion of income earned by those in the top 20% has increased over the years, and thus widened the gap between the bottom quintile and the top quintile, but that is by measuring the statistical categories, not the actual people themselves. The people in the top 20% two decades ago may not be the same people there now, and people in the bottom 20% two decades ago it's the same, many of them are likely in the middle-income and upper quintiles today.

When they say "middle-class incomes are stagnant," all that really means is that the middle quintile, a statistical category, has not shown much gain overall. But the people who were in the middle-quintile two decades ago could be in a higher quintile now, and people who were in a lower quintile could be in a middle quintile now.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Generally, as per capita income increases, the country's standard of living increases, in particular among the middle-income earners considering the standard of living of the average middle-income person today is far higher than it was in the past.

I'm not arguing that per-capita income doesn't relate to standard of living. I'm saying its a useless statistic for arguing whether the incomes for the middle class are stagnant, as all of the gains could be made by the upper class.

America, there are just income quintiles, statistical categories. People move into and out of these statistical categories all the time, which makes comparing ratios between them inaccurate.

Its a good thing people also study short term mobility- http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

Long story short- the upper quintile is experiencing less income security, and hence, is staying in the upper quintile. Meanwhile, the middle quintile are experiencing more income insecurity, and the frequency of large negative shocks is increasing. The good news is that the bottom quintile has a fairly steady rate of upward mobility. All of this leads me to stand by my assertion.

This study was pre-great-recession, I imagine the recent recession hit the middle class fairly hard, but we will probably have to wait a few years for definitive studies.

 

[gravenewworld]

The Feb. monthly meeting of the San Antonio Section of the ACS features a speaker who is a past President of ACS. His topic?

Read it and weep...



Gravenewworld, you are invited. I'll buy.

How depressing. I just found an old ex-coworker from my old company who graduated in 2002 with his BS in chemistry, but left my old company within the first few months that I started there to go on to work for the Philadelphia Water Department. Apparently he is now moving on to his MBA and economics. Yet another stat that fits perfectly into the pie chart link you posted.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It almost certainly explains almost all of it: kids tend to achieve what their parents achieve. Ie, if the parents didn't finish school, the kids probably won't either.

My question was along the lines of welfare type safety nets (I thought my anecdote made that clear?). i.e. does universal health care increase the percentage of kids who finish k-12 type education in a given country. I refuse to believe the US population is simply lazier than the population of other countries, so key differences might be the existence of a stronger welfare state. I honestly I have no idea how to test this hypothesis.

 

[mugaliens]

If you have the ability to find gainful employment suitable to you and your family outside the US, and you're happy with it's long-term prospects, I iwsh you the best! There are opportunities here, for sure, but our world is simply expanding.

Perhaps I should have remained abroad.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Sorry if this has already been said but in response to the OP:

In order for free market entities(corporations)to compete for business they have to lower prices.
An easy way to lower prices is to outsource jobs to countries that will work for lower wages.
In order for a company to remain competitive in the market they must follow suit.
This leads to more jobs being outsourced to China, India,etc.
Americans can no longer afford Americans!
This also may have something to do with inflation.
A rapid rise in inflation can cause a need for rapid decreases in prices. Since efficiency for example improves over time, outsourcing can be a quick way to decrease overhead spending so that a company can lower their prices on the goods they provide.
Again to remain competitive in pricing other companies must follow suit.
Inflation is measured by CPI or the Consumer Price Index. This number is obtained through comparing the prices of a 'market basket' of goods and giving them a numerical value.
CPI is not an accurate measurement of inflation IMO as prices of goods may fall due to free market competition.
Inflation causes prices to rise as inflation is the result of 'currency dilution'.
The free market makes up for these rises in prices by lowering the price of their goods
through improvements in efficiency, technology etc. and outsourcing jobs to workers willing to work for less.
So IMO employment is not going to improve without the influx of new money(bailouts,'stimulus' money) to keep businesses afloat through consumer spending. And of course the influx of new money also creates an equal rise in inflation which only adds to the initial problem.

 

[symbolipoint]

Sorry if this has already been said but in response to the OP:

In order for free market entities(corporations)to compete for business they have to lower prices.
An easy way to lower prices is to outsource jobs to countries that will work for lower wages.
In order for a company to remain competitive in the market they must follow suit.
This leads to more jobs being outsourced to China, India,etc.
Americans can no longer afford Americans!
This also may have something to do with inflation.
A rapid rise in inflation can cause a need for rapid decreases in prices. Since efficiency for example improves over time, outsourcing can be a quick way to decrease overhead spending so that a company can lower their prices on the goods they provide.
Again to remain competitive in pricing other companies must follow suit.
Inflation is measured by CPI or the Consumer Price Index. This number is obtained through comparing the prices of a 'market basket' of goods and giving them a numerical value.
CPI is not an accurate measurement of inflation IMO as prices of goods may fall due to free market competition.
Inflation causes prices to rise as inflation is the result of 'currency dilution'.
The free market makes up for these rises in prices by lowering the price of their goods
through improvements in efficiency, technology etc. and outsourcing jobs to workers willing to work for less.
So IMO employment is not going to improve without the influx of new money(bailouts,'stimulus' money) to keep businesses afloat through consumer spending. And of course the influx of new money also creates an equal rise in inflation which only adds to the initial problem.

Yah, yah, yah, yah.
What is who invensting in? That outsourcing seems like a way to avoid investing in capital and people in the U.S.