I really see no hope for employment in the US

[CAC1001]

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.

The middle income quintile hasn't seen as many gains, but that is totally different than a term such as "the middle class." Upper-quintile also doesn't mean "upper-class." Because the middle quintile hasn't seen many gains doesn't mean that the people in said quintile have not seen gains. Many of these gains made by the "upper-class" can actually be people moving out of the middle quintile and into the upper quintile. But as people move out of a lower quintile and into the middle quintile as well, the statistical category can remain unchanged, while the upper quintile ends up "gaining."

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

Not saying the study is wrong, but always be wary of the source. The Center for American Progress is a center-left organization funded in part by George Soros. It would be like citing the Cato Institute for a study on whether NAFTA was good or not.

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,

Wouldn't "less income security" and "more income insecurity" be the same thing...?

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.

Changes in the quintiles doesn't mean changes in the people within the quintiles though. For example, the bottom quintiles making gains doesn't mean a permanent, fixed group or class of poor people are making gains, as people move into and out of them constantly. It just means that as a category, that quintile is seeing improvement.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

One thing maybe to look at is graduationg rates in the big U.S. cities, in the poor areas. Most of the population resides in the cities I believe, and it wouldn't be surprising if the areas with the worst graduation rates are the inner-city schools.

 

[PhilKravitz]

One thing maybe to look at is graduationg rates in the big U.S. cities, in the poor areas. Most of the population resides in the cities I believe, and it wouldn't be surprising if the areas with the worst graduation rates are the inner-city schools.

Low graduation rate correlate with low income. Both the urban poor and the rural poor have low graduation rates.

I do not know the relative number of urban poor versus rural poor.

Of course correlation is not causation. Could be being poor makes one drop out. Could be being stupid makes one poor and makes one drop out.

 

[George Jones]

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.

I know a Canadian counterexample, someone whose parents both stop attending school at the the end of grade eight, but who got a Ph.D. The Canadian social safety net was very important in this case.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

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.

Yah, yah, yah, yah.

What is who investing in?

What?

That outsourcing seems like a way to avoid investing in capital and people in the U.S.

Sure is!

 

[GRB 080319B]

Let's face reality here, many, many of these jobs are never coming back, they are all now in China and India.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/jul/21/will-manufacturing-return-america/"

Definitely not in the manufacturing sector of the US economy. The 90's-era delusion that the US would be able to perpetuate its industrial-era growth as a purely service-based economy fueled by information technology has been dispelled. Emerging markets have taken over the primary and secondary sectors of the US economy in the interim, and the service and information sectors are soon to follow. China has become the manufacturing floor of the world, and will soon be the leading technological innovator due to increased R&D and forced technology transfer. Developed countries will see a drop in their standard of living as the emerging markets grow and the global economy adjusts to a new equilibrium.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/jul/21/will-manufacturing-return-america/"

Definitely not in the manufacturing sector of the US economy. The 90's-era delusion that the US would be able to perpetuate its industrial-era growth as a purely service-based economy fueled by information technology has been dispelled. Emerging markets have taken over the primary and secondary sectors of the US economy in the interim, and the service and information sectors are soon to follow. China has become the manufacturing floor of the world, and will soon be the leading technological innovator due to increased R&D and forced technology transfer. Developed countries will see a drop in their standard of living as the emerging markets grow and the global economy adjusts to a new equilibrium.

Why must that be so?

 

[Proton Soup]

Why must that be so?

not sure. Germany seems to know how to do manufacturing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/business/global/25euecon.html

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Why must that be so?

I think I explained it in post 174. That unfornutately is the problem. Until Americans are willing to pay higher prices for American goods it is only going to get worse. Too bad American made goods are only going to get more expensive.

 

[WhoWee]

I would think anyone engaged in R&D professionally (in the US) would have some ideas on how to reinvigorate manufacturing in the US? Is all hope lost? Is the "green" economy the only solution?

 

[mheslep]

not sure. Germany seems to know how to do manufacturing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/business/global/25euecon.html

Well keep in mind US mfn output is still the largest.
http://www.bullfax.com/imgs/d2568fadd35557e6a7020da29f148e4f5842729a.jpg

 

[mheslep]

I think I explained it in post 174.

I didn't see any consideration there of regulations, business taxes, cost of energy, union work rules, etc that we see, for instance, as commonly cited reasons by businesses for leaving California or Michigan.

 

[CAC1001]

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/jul/21/will-manufacturing-return-america/"

Definitely not in the manufacturing sector of the US economy. The 90's-era delusion that the US would be able to perpetuate its industrial-era growth as a purely service-based economy fueled by information technology has been dispelled. Emerging markets have taken over the primary and secondary sectors of the US economy in the interim, and the service and information sectors are soon to follow. China has become the manufacturing floor of the world, and will soon be the leading technological innovator due to increased R&D and forced technology transfer. Developed countries will see a drop in their standard of living as the emerging markets grow and the global economy adjusts to a new equilibrium.

America manufactures more than any other country in the world right now. We are not a "purely service-based" economy and China is not the "manufacturing floor of the world." Even if/when China overtakes the U.S. in manufacturing, the U.S. STILL will remain one of the major global manufacturing powers.

As for services, manufacturing is not a panacea. China's economy primarily consists of manufacturing things for foreign companies (foreign to them) and construction. They have virtually no service sector.

And what do you base it on that China will anytime soon become the leading technological innovator? American research universities are the fienst in the world. The Chinese can't even design and build a jet engine on their own. Their military aircraft have to rely on Russian jet engines right now.

 

[CAC1001]

I would think anyone engaged in R&D professionally (in the US) would have some ideas on how to reinvigorate manufacturing in the US? Is all hope lost? Is the "green" economy the only solution?

American manufacturing is very vigorous. It runs into some occassional hard times, but overall, it continues to grow and become more productive year after year. I don't know where that whole "America doesn't make anything more" myth ever got started from.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There will be manufacturing in America for a long time to come.

What there will not be is a guarantee that with a high school diploma, everyone is guaranteed a well-paying manufacturing position doing exactly the same thing for the rest of their lives.

 

[nismaratwork]

American manufacturing is very vigorous. It runs into some occassional hard times, but overall, it continues to grow and become more productive year after year. I don't know where that whole "America doesn't make anything more" myth ever got started from.

Trade Groups, Unions, Politicians...

Iacoca
UAW
I find it hard to think of a politician who's been around who DOESN'T sell this line.

So, basically it's fed to people on every level, and during times of economic turmoil, and every time an Asian country starts to manufacture (Japan, Taiwan, China, Indonesia...) in a competitive fashion (fair or unfair)... the US calls "doomsday".

Really, there's more to back up these kinds of fears than most political props, such as "the threat of tyranny", or anything else Glenn Beck has ever said or thought.

So... why the surprise?

 

[AlephZero]

Low graduation rate correlate with low income. Both the urban poor and the rural poor have low graduation rates.

I do not know the relative number of urban poor versus rural poor.

Of course correlation is not causation. Could be being poor makes one drop out. Could be being stupid makes one poor and makes one drop out.

The UK experience is not quite that simple. One problem is that the urban poor tend to live in "poor neighbourhoods" which have schools with no "culture" of academic achievement. Not surprisingly, good teachers do not often apply for jobs at these schools by choice, so the cycle continues.

The rural poor are more likely to find themselves in a school with a wide cultural mix, and there are many schools in provincial towns in the UK with histories going back 300 or 400 years to some local benfactor, and strong academic traditions, despite the best attempts by national government to impose an "education strategy" that reduces them all to the same level of mediocrity.

The outcomes for poor kids also depends very much on the cultural background of the kids. Without intending to stereotype anybody, newly arrived middle eastern and asian immigrant families are often obsessive about the value of education even if the parents are functionally illiterate in English. (The better-off asians are usually even more obsessive about education than the poor.) At the other end of the spectrum, afro-carribeans (especially the boys) just want to have fun and make lots of money (not necessarily legally).

One of my friends has given up a "nice" teaching job in a mainly middle class village school and moved to an inner city school where the majority of the kids are asian, because there is more job satisfaction teaching kids who actually want to learn something - even if many of them start off knowing nothing except a handful of words of English.

 

[nismaratwork]

The UK experience is not quite that simple. One problem is that the urban poor tend to live in "poor neighbourhoods" which have schools with no "culture" of academic achievement. Not surprisingly, good teachers do not often apply for jobs at these schools by choice, so the cycle continues.

The rural poor are more likely to find themselves in a school with a wide cultural mix, and there are many schools in provincial towns in the UK with histories going back 300 or 400 years to some local benfactor, and strong academic traditions, despite the best attempts by national government to impose an "education strategy" that reduces them all to the same level of mediocrity.

The outcomes for poor kids also depends very much on the cultural background of the kids. Without intending to stereotype anybody, newly arrived middle eastern and asian immigrant families are often obsessive about the value of education even if the parents are functionally illiterate in English. (The better-off asians are usually even more obsessive about education than the poor.) At the other end of the spectrum, afro-carribeans (especially the boys) just want to have fun and make lots of money (not necessarily legally).

One of my friends has given up a "nice" teaching job in a mainly middle class village school and moved to an inner city school where the majority of the kids are asian, because there is more job satisfaction teaching kids who actually want to learn something - even if many of them start off knowing nothing except a handful of words of English.

That sounds like the descriptions of going through the USA public (freely available) school system, but I guess I'm not the guy to ask that.

 

[Zarqon]

American manufacturing is very vigorous. It runs into some occassional hard times, but overall, it continues to grow and become more productive year after year. I don't know where that whole "America doesn't make anything more" myth ever got started from.

Well, it's of course clear that not all manufacturing is leaving the US, but rather that the trend of manufacturing jobs moving outside of the US may be the difference between 5% unemployment and 10-15%.

Also, remember that even though productivity may go up as you say, it doesn't necessarily mean that the number of jobs available will go up. A part of the increase is always because of technological advances in manufacturing methods (the development of which requires fewer people than the job they replace) as well as increased automatization. In general, I consider better methods and automatization a positive thing, even though it leads to fewer jobs. Thus, I think an important part of organizing our future society is coming up with a model that works just fine even with a substantial mount of people not working ("unemployed").

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, it's of course clear that not all manufacturing is leaving the US, but rather that the trend of manufacturing jobs moving outside of the US may be the difference between 5% unemployment and 10-15%.

Also, remember that even though productivity may go up as you say, it doesn't necessarily mean that the number of jobs available will go up. A part of the increase is always because of technological advances in manufacturing methods (the development of which requires fewer people than the job they replace) as well as increased automatization. In general, I consider better methods and automatization a positive thing, even though it leads to fewer jobs. Thus, I think an important part of organizing our future society is coming up with a model that works just fine even with a substantial mount of people not working ("unemployed").

Oooh! Oooh! I have it!

People should stop breeding so damned much, and maybe there would be some balance between jobs and job-seekers.

 

[CAC1001]

Well, it's of course clear that not all manufacturing is leaving the US, but rather that the trend of manufacturing jobs moving outside of the US may be the difference between 5% unemployment and 10-15%.

Also, remember that even though productivity may go up as you say, it doesn't necessarily mean that the number of jobs available will go up. A part of the increase is always because of technological advances in manufacturing methods (the development of which requires fewer people than the job they replace) as well as increased automatization. In general, I consider better methods and automatization a positive thing, even though it leads to fewer jobs. Thus, I think an important part of organizing our future society is coming up with a model that works just fine even with a substantial mount of people not working ("unemployed").

Yes, manufacturing jobs go down as productivity in manufacturing increases. Same happened with agriculture. We grow more food today than ever before, but use far fewer people. That doesn't mean that overall job creation in the economy goes down. Automation and further productivity in manufacturing frees up people to do other work that they wouldn't be available to do if they were tied up in manufacturing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, manufacturing jobs go down as productivity in manufacturing increases. Same happened with agriculture. We grow more food today than ever before, but use far fewer people. That doesn't mean that overall job creation in the economy goes down. Automation and further productivity in manufacturing frees up people to do other work that they wouldn't be available to do if they were tied up in manufacturing.

Not to mention that automation requires service... you're shifting a lot of the same skills from manufacture to maintenance. Otherwise... yeah... the alternative is to return to a far more primitive way of life.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Same happened with agriculture. We grow more food today than ever before, but use far fewer people.

Ummm, not really. If the American farmers just up and quit do you really think just that small percent of the American population would end up out of work? Farmers rely on external inputs more and more every year. The days of living off the land, so to speak, are long gone. There are a lot of the people that used to live and work on farms who have moved to cities are working in industries that are providing a significant amount of support to those who are doing the actual growing of our food.

 

[CAC1001]

Ummm, not really. If the American farmers just up and quit do you really think just that small percent of the American population would end up out of work? Farmers rely on external inputs more and more every year. The days of living off the land, so to speak, are long gone. There are a lot of the people that used to live and work on farms who have moved to cities are working in industries that are providing a significant amount of support to those who are doing the actual growing of our food.

My point was we do not need the vast majority of the population employed in agriculture anymore.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Whatever you 'meant' was not really what you said. You claim we grow a lot more food, which is true, with far fewer people, which isn't completely true. See my previous post. 'Nuff said, I feel it is impossible for me to make this any clearer.

 

[turbo]

Whatever you 'meant' was not really what you said. You claim we grow a lot more food, which is true, with far fewer people, which isn't completely true. See my previous post. 'Nuff said, I feel it is impossible for me to make this any clearer.

It is a good idea to consider seasonal variations in employment. Once upon a time, farms were operated by families, with perhaps cooperative efforts during high-labor times, like during the harvest. Nowadays, automation has stripped the population of active farmers in grains, corn, etc. There are lots of people employed in the harvest of tomatoes, broccoli, apples, grapes, lettuce, strawberries, etc, but those crops are not well-suited to mechanical one-size-fits-all harvesting. It is not easy to gauge the labor-costs for migrant seasonal work-forces.

 

[CAC1001]

Whatever you 'meant' was not really what you said.

Yes it is.

You claim we grow a lot more food, which is true, with far fewer people, which isn't completely true. See my previous post. 'Nuff said, I feel it is impossible for me to make this any clearer.

We use far fewer people, as a percentage of the population, to grow food today than we did before. We also use fewer people, as a percentage of the population, to manufacture things.

Yes, the economy is interlinked, I'm talking about the people directly involved. I am sure if you stretch it far enough, you could connect anyone to any industry.

 

[mheslep]

Whatever you 'meant' was not really what you said. You claim we grow a lot more food, which is true, with far fewer people, which isn't completely true. See my previous post. 'Nuff said, I feel it is impossible for me to make this any clearer.

You're referring to all the additonal inputs from the guy who made the tracter, pumped the oil to run the tracter, made the advandced hybrid seeds, etc. CAC is still correct for like versus like. In terms of man hours to produce a bushel of whatever, including the fractional man hours for the tractor, etc, the total is still down many multiples of what it was hundreds of years ago. That's just for the bushel at the farm, however. If you add in the nationwide, even global, food distribution system, the nice presentation at the local grocer, the 100,000 paper pushers at the US Dept of Agriculture; that part didn't exist a couple hundred years ago, and I'll grant you that part of the food industry in the US is using many more people than before.

 

[nismaratwork]

You're referring to all the additonal inputs from the guy who made the tracter, pumped the oil to run the tracter, made the advandced hybrid seeds, etc. CAC is still correct for like versus like. In terms of man hours to produce a bushel of whatever, including the fractional man hours for the tractor, etc, the total is still down many multiples of what it was hundreds of years ago. That's just for the bushel at the farm, however. If you add in the nationwide, even global, food distribution system, the nice presentation at the local grocer, the 100,000 paper pushers at the US Dept of Agriculture; that part didn't exist a couple hundred years ago, and I'll grant you that part of the food industry in the US is using many more people than before.

I'd add, the use of corn, wheat, and soybeans in large tracts makes it possible, not for all crops, to harvest using minimal labor. The result isn't lost jobs, because we no longer have much of an indigenous migrant labor force. Yeah, that big machine cost a ton, and it uses diesel, but it also does the work of a literal FLEET of people. People need food, shelter, entertainment, training... and more. If you can clear fields of grapes, wheat, corn, soy... all in a few days and with minimal loss?... Averagesupernova, I need a much better argument to explain why you think your point is so "clear".

 

[Al68]

Thus, I think an important part of organizing our future society is coming up with a model that works just fine even with a substantial mount of people not working ("unemployed").

The "model" that works best is society organizing itself as individuals choose. It also has the added benefit of individual economic liberty, which many still consider integral to their happiness.

 

[Zarqon]

The "model" that works best is society organizing itself as individuals choose. It also has the added benefit of individual economic liberty, which many still consider integral to their happiness.

I'm not sure what you mean by individual choice, but I don't know if it can be considered an organization. I mean, what if one individuals choice contradicts another ones?

No, with model I was thinking of the fact that one country produces a certain amount of combined products/services, and the job of the Model is to describe how those resources are distributed to all people in that country in the best possible way. Regardless of how many persons have to work to produce those resources. If only 50% of the population needs to work to reach that goal, then this is a good thing not a bad, and the non-working portion also needs to be able to get enough of what society produces to be happy.

 

[Astronuc]

Interestingly - there seems to be opportunity in Germany - if one can get through the maze of regulations.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1020/1224281543028.html

 

[mugaliens]

Employment is up in the US! Furthermore, earnings were unexpectedly terrific this past quarter, as were investment starts. This invariably translates into opening the doors to more employment.

 

[talk2glenn]

Whatever you 'meant' was not really what you said. You claim we grow a lot more food, which is true, with far fewer people, which isn't completely true. See my previous post. 'Nuff said, I feel it is impossible for me to make this any clearer.

This is complete nonsense.

Agriculture contributes about 1.2% of US GDP (by definition final product, which includes intermediate goods), and consumes about 2.0% of US energy (both direct and indirect).

The notion that there has not been a dramatic reallocation of labor out of agriculture and into other sectors since, approximately, the Industrial Revolution is silly and pointless. Every high school kid knows that agriculture has gone from 99% of global GDP a few hundred years ago to less than a third today.

 

[mheslep]

talk2glenn you're missing the details of what was said. Yes obviously agricultural productivity is way up. But Cac1001 commented in terms of absolutes originally, not in terms of productivity of produce made per person:

We grow more food today than ever before, but use far fewer people.

That's not exactly true, just as A. SuperNova said, as there are probably more people directly employed by agriculture in the US than in the entire population of the US in colonial times. Then he alluded to how the the modern farmer is dependent on other parts of society, which is also true. One can't point to X people in a society any more and say that those people alone are responsible for producing food.