Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue is while they cut jobs and wages to make profit, executives makes millions while they pay people peanuts because they can replace them with virtually anyone.
Indeed, and as long as that is permitted and respected by our society it will remain the case. We talk a lot about the American Way as if it were something we knew 250 years ago was some clear path outlined then that very clearly and definitively led to a never-ending cycle of ever-increasing prosperity for all. That's simply not true. The American Way can be, and has been, used to craft higher and higher levels of prosperity for the nation, though it should be noted that as nations we used to abuse our superpower to exploit started successfully thwarting our exploitation, that's moderated our ability to grow our nation's prosperity that way.
Regardless, along the way, as we've innovated new ways to bring about growth and technologies to improve economies of scale, those innovations have generally results in more prosperity for practically all. But now it doesn't anymore. Many of the newest innovations that have prompted more prosperity for the companies that utilize them have done so in light of the new global environment. To overcome the moderation of our ability to exploit other nations' riches, innovators have had to find new ways to innovate, and the most popular today is finding ways of placating the demands of other nations by giving them jobs at a fraction of what the same work earns in this nation.
So what's the endgame? Well if the intent is to play American workers off of workers from around the world - and it is - then that means the intent of today's innovation is to bring the Standard of Living in the United States down to a level that is essentially the average Standard of Living of the world overall.
That's if we stick with the American Way as it is.
But it isn't up to the innovators to chop their own arms off. If you don't like this story I've written above, then the blame shouldn't be directed at the people who are just doing the best they can at what they are doing for their company. It's not the company that's broken. If you don't like what's going on, you need to recognize that it's the American Way that's broken.
for purposes of comparing the US job situation to other western countries that would be irrelevant because you can assume the same for other countries as well.
Wrong it's critical you have the correct data so you comparing the same between 2, an apples to apples comparison.
"In addition to the unemployment measures covered here, Eurostat also publishes statistics for persons who fulfil only partially the definition of unemployment. These persons are not included in the official ILO unemployment concept and have a varying degree of attachment to the labour market. The indicators on underemployment and potential additional labour force participants supplement the unemployment rate to provide a more complete picture of the labour market."
Last edited by Selena777; 03-14-2014 at 11:24 AM..
"hat's simply not true. The American Way can be, and has been, used to craft higher and higher levels of prosperity for the nation, though it should be noted that as nations we used to abuse our superpower to exploit started successfully thwarting our exploitation, that's moderated our ability to grow our nation's prosperity that way."
It depends. Technically speaking colonization caused many countries to do the same. Gradually many of those countries faded more from the worlds stage.
"Regardless, along the way, as we've innovated new ways to bring about growth and technologies to improve economies of scale, those innovations have generally results in more prosperity for practically all. But now it doesn't anymore."
I would argue it does but the gains keep getting smaller (i.e. marginalized). The leap from dial up to high speed internet was huge. Now how much "better" are we going to get if a 90 minute video takes 3 minutes to download instead of 5? If everyone was granted unlimited text message to Nepal is that a gain? Yeah I guess but it is not that huge of a gain.
"Many of the newest innovations that have prompted more prosperity for the companies that utilize them have done so in light of the new global environment. To overcome the moderation of our ability to exploit other nations' riches, innovators have had to find new ways to innovate, and the most popular today is finding ways of placating the demands of other nations by giving them jobs at a fraction of what the same work earns in this nation."
But the US has always had cheap labor. Before automation manual labor dictated that either someone had to wait and raise a family or if they had the finances slaves. Manual labor declined dramatically with automation. One could argue that yes if we got rid of our appliances and hired people to do the same work it could be done but the costs of full time work doing so would be impossible for individual families.
"So what's the endgame? Well if the intent is to play American workers off of workers from around the world - and it is - then that means the intent of today's innovation is to bring the Standard of Living in the United States down to a level that is essentially the average Standard of Living of the world overall. "
Not really. Standard of living is more subjective rather than an absolute. We have higher standards of living then in the past. The sense of security however is not nearly as there. Back in the late 70's and early 80's one way to fight inflation would be to simply work overtime. How many professions have that option today? Security was implied in that businesses had fewer options back then. The threat of moving a business was less, automation was less, there was higher unionization and so forth Now it's hyper. Now you have products made by one company, sold by another, marketed by another and all of these are owned by others.
We have higher prices largely because much of the developing world is developing and their gains are not marginal. China went from massive starvation in the 1960's to being able to eat in the 70's to having a tv in the 80's to having a job and now probably a professional career and education today. But now THAT is slowing.
Globalization is fine but it does get marginalized to a point as there's only a handful of countries that technically do not trade with each other. Even if sanctions are taken down the gains only go so far.This is where we'll see organizations moving into areas that are just distressed. I see this already in Mass. The 128 belt is way too expensive and one can get property for probably 80% off 90 minutes away going west. Cost of everything is less so why pay more?
It depends. Technically speaking colonization caused many countries to do the same. Gradually many of those countries faded more from the worlds stage.
Colonization was just the first stage. Long after colonization was past history, we used our superpower leverage to extract better deals in our international trade. It was the 1973 oil crisis that represented the most significant turning point in that aspect of our economic history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
I would argue it does but the gains keep getting smaller (i.e. marginalized).
Yes, true, but my point is that at some point over the last fifteen years, the marginalization reached the point where year over year the aggregate opportunity is now smaller than the year prior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
The leap from dial up to high speed internet was huge.
I'm talking about things like how advances in information technology led to a growth of new industries to design, build, deploy and indeed market these new capabilities. And I'm also talking about how much of this work can now be done anywhere in the world, and how that would drive the standard of living associated with the growth of that industry in the United States to leave the United States, leaving less standard of living behind for Americans. And I'm talking about how innovation today, instead of creating new opportunities that will result in new standard of living in the United States, are rather structured so as to bring about these new economic opportunities for revenue growth without incurring the high cost of designing, building, deploying and marketing these new capabilities that would stem from doing those things in the United States, but instead many companies selling to Americans seek to shift as much of those costly activities to places where the standard of living is an order of magnitude baser than the United States, thereby resetting the value of the labor necessary to bring about those revenue opportunities down an order of magnitude, the difference gleaned as additional profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
But the US has always had cheap labor.
In our lifetimes, only cheap relative to other labor in the United States. Not cheap relative to other labor in the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
Not really. Standard of living is more subjective rather than an absolute.
That's a cop out. A way of avoiding defending your claim of "Not really" in any substantive or worthwhile manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
We have higher standards of living then in the past.
To the extent that is still true (which isn't 100% as you would have us believe) it is causing the economic stress that is the focus of today's politics. We are trying to maintain the high standard of living without doing what is necessary to ensure enough people have access to the jobs that would pay enough so that they could pay their own way and secure their futures. Doing so leads to crises that effectively reset the standard of living lower. Objectively, the 2008 fiscal crisis did that. The average standard of living of all Americans taken in aggregate went down. You're not seeing more people on the streets, but you are seeing more people mortgaging their future for current maintenance, though not even maintaining what they had before 2008, again taking all Americans in aggregate. The recession is over. Employment is healthy again. But the default level has been reset - lower - even if you refuse to admit that.
U.S. workers are taking home the smallest share of the income pie that has ever been recorded.
Despite what the mainstream media keeps telling them, most Americans know on a gut level that there is something fundamentally wrong with our economy.
The really bad news is that this is about as good as things are going to get for the U.S. economy. The long-term trends that are eating away at our economy like cancer are intensifying, and our "leaders" just continue to act as if "business as usual" will somehow get the job done.
"And I'm also talking about how much of this work can now be done anywhere in the world, and how that would drive the standard of living associated with the growth of that industry in the United States to leave the United States, leaving less standard of living behind for Americans. And I'm talking about how innovation today, instead of creating new opportunities that will result in new standard of living in the United States, are rather structured so as to bring about these new economic opportunities for revenue growth without incurring the high cost of designing, building, deploying and marketing these new capabilities that would stem from doing those things in the United States, but instead many companies selling to Americans seek to shift as much of those costly activities to places where the standard of living is an order of magnitude baser than the United States, thereby resetting the value of the labor necessary to bring about those revenue opportunities down an order of magnitude, the difference gleaned as additional profit. "
To a point though it isn't so much a living standard for ALL. That's the keyword here. Right now we're both using a message board. We agree on the language and for the most part I'd bet we're using computers probably less than a decade old. We have opportunities but unfortunately we have some bases of people that frankly are not trying and in order for that to occur they must.
I would argue that a bachelors today is what a high school diploma was in generations past. Well I know of communities where maybe 60% graduate high school. There are many inner cities were frankly this holds not just people back but entire communities.
"In our lifetimes, only cheap relative to other labor in the United States. Not cheap relative to other labor in the rest of the world."
Quicken loans decided to go to Detroit over Brazil. It was only a 15% difference in cost. When they factored in the cost of transportation, translation and contract laws it simply was not worth it. The median wage of manufacturing in China in 2000 was 50 cents. It is estimated next year to be $4.50/hr. Then factor in the cost of shipping and contract laws (there was no 5th amendment in China until 2010 )
"We are trying to maintain the high standard of living without doing what is necessary to ensure enough people have access to the jobs that would pay enough so that they could pay their own way and secure their futures. Doing so leads to crises that effectively reset the standard of living lower."
But we're seeing jobs come back. You have to admit that equal opportunities do NOT provide for equal outcomes. The digital divide is no longer people with high speed internet vs those without but rather those that are mindlessly using it for cat videos and pornography vs those that are networking, training under software programs, finding jobs and advancing with them.
What is the cost of a laptop these days $300? What is the cost of libreoffice (nothing). What is the cost of wifi if even McDonalds of all places has it (nothing). So what exactly is holding people back from learning and gaining experience even without an employer providing it?
"Objectively, the 2008 fiscal crisis did that. The average standard of living of all Americans taken in aggregate went down. You're not seeing more people on the streets, but you are seeing more people mortgaging their future for current maintenance, though not even maintaining what they had before 2008, again taking all Americans in aggregate. The recession is over. Employment is healthy again. But the default level has been reset - lower - even if you refuse to admit that."
But i think the real argument frankly is that the bubbles were simply more broader based. I was caught up in the dot com bubble and plenty were let go from that. Hardly anyone outside of technology saw the impact. Housing and credit obviously have a greater base.
To a point though it isn't so much a living standard for ALL.
I was referring to the standard of living, declining in general for most people, because of the circumstances I outlined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
I would argue that a bachelors today is what a high school diploma was in generations past.
Not even: Because, as I alluded to, getting a college degree in the past expanded America's ability to have work performed by college educated people. By contrast, today, it just increases the competition for jobs requiring a college degree, further undercutting the value of work. The distinction is subtle but critical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
Quicken loans decided to go to Detroit over Brazil.
Bad example, for reasons that were actually included in your comments. To demonstrate what I was talking about you'd have to open your mind to examples of what I was talking about rather than the comparatively fewer counter-examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
But we're seeing jobs come back.
And jobs continue to leave.
And the jobs coming back come with them compensation lower than the jobs that were previously lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
You have to admit that equal opportunities do NOT provide for equal outcomes.
I don't pander to vacuous jingoism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
So what exactly is holding people back from learning and gaining experience even without an employer providing it?
Lower ROI is a major impediment. Greater education provides greater return than lesser education, but greater education today does not provide the same return as the same enhancement in education did a generation ago. And even if the money and spare time was there for everyone to pursue higher education, all that would do is make the crisis of competition in the labor market even deeper, further undercutting compensation, and further undercutting the ROI from greater education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
But i think the real argument frankly is that the bubbles were simply more broader based.
Calling structural degradation of the standard of living of the nation a "bubble" is unreasonable.
"Not even: Because, as I alluded to, getting a college degree in the past expanded America's ability to have work performed by college educated people. By contrast, today, it just increases the competition for jobs requiring a college degree, further undercutting the value of work. The distinction is subtle but critical. "
I don't think it undecuts the value of work. If the private sector would have companies that would work with each other rather than against each other then the experience of that work would be more valued.
"Bad example, for reasons that were actually included in your comments. To demonstrate what I was talking about you'd have to open your mind to examples of what I was talking about rather than the comparatively fewer counter-examples."
It's not fewer counter examples. Companies exist due to contract laws. Otherwise we'd see companies flocking to Haiti and Somalia.
"And jobs continue to leave.
And the jobs coming back come with them compensation lower than the jobs that were previously lost." How ‘Made in the USA’ is Making a Comeback | TIME.com
500,000 jobs in three years That is statistically significant. But keep in mind the following.
"Many new manufacturing jobs require at least a two-year tech degree to complement artisan skills such as welding or milling. The bar will only get higher: Some experts believe it won’t be too long before employers will expect a four-year degree — a job qualification that will eventually be required in many other places around the world too." The era of for lack of a better term manual labor manufacturing is over. Not much is made on a mass scale by hand. It is more about being a technician that works the machine.
Ok smaller scale. Here's a list of where over 12 million in grants went for training in Mass in industries varying from construction to manufacturing http://www.mass.gov/lwd/docs/dcs/wtf...tfp-grants.pdf
So yes there is an argument to be made that there can be incentives for work to stay in the USA and in various states for that matter.
"I don't pander to vacuous jingoism."
It's not jinogism it is pretty much a good axiom. If you think equal opportunities mean equal outcomes then kindly show us all where that occurs.
"Lower ROI is a major impediment. Greater education provides greater return than lesser education, but greater education today does not provide the same return as the same enhancement in education did a generation ago. And even if the money and spare time was there for everyone to pursue higher education, all that would do is make the crisis of competition in the labor market even deeper, further undercutting compensation, and further undercutting the ROI from greater education."
So what exactly is the answer then given that companies are largely proprietary. Working for the government is fine but it cannot hire everyone, neither can non profits. You seem to be looking more for some grand answer to everything. Look if you like it or not Average is over. Infact read the book Average is Over as it illustrates how some people frankly aren't learning. They aren't learning regardless of if it is a job, an education or a government program. If we have school districts where 90% graduate and some where it is 60% what exactly can be learned here? How many people still smoke even though it gradually kills them and drives health care costs up? How many do harmful drugs even though the last I checked heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine are not in the USDA food group! Like it or not there's behavior that frankly can create a predictable pattern.
"Calling structural degradation of the standard of living of the nation a "bubble" is unreasonable."
How is it unreasonable given the bubbles of the past. Dotcom/techbubble, real estate in florida was a bubble for awhile. Energy is a bubble and has been in the past. I have family that lived in Texas during the 80's. Military industrial complex can be a bubble and so on. I have a colleague that told me of a time when he was in Egypt of people selling Benz's for $50 due to the situations that were staring back then.
I cannot see where this era of stability was of which you imply. The 1950's? Well precivil rights and womens rights the labor pool was smaller. So what's the answer for that? The 70's? hardly with the oil shocks and interest rates. The 80's? unemployment was still high. 1990's? Mostly fueled by the boom in cell phones, computers and the internet. There's volumes of economic research on bubbles, I am sure you can read some of it and notice that we are still deflating a bubble here.
"Not even: Because, as I alluded to, getting a college degree in the past expanded America's ability to have work performed by college educated people. By contrast, today, it just increases the competition for jobs requiring a college degree, further undercutting the value of work. The distinction is subtle but critical. "
I don't think it undecuts the value of work.
Then you'd think incorrectly. It is basic economics. Once innovation is no longer creating more high wage jobs than it obviates, the impact of there being more qualified people for the same jobs is a reduction of the value of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
If the private sector would have companies that would work with each other rather than against each other then the experience of that work would be more valued.
That sentence is literally meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
It's not fewer counter examples.
Yes, it is. That's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
500,000 jobs in three years That is statistically significant.
Ignoring half of what I wrote just shows that you're really not interested in having a discussion with integrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
It's not jinogism it is pretty much a good axiom.
No. It is jingoism. I wouldn't have said it was if it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
If you think equal opportunities mean equal outcomes then kindly show us all where that occurs.
Why not reply to what I actually did write instead of trying to respond to things that no one wrote? Why are you working so hard to blind yourself to what I've said to you? The fact that you're playing such games indicates to me that you know that your perspective has holes and you just aren't willing to face the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell
So what exactly is the answer
You seem to think that there must be an "answer" that doesn't involve radically changing things, and refuse to acknowledge that radical changes cannot even be considered until attitudes change, since the manner in which attitudes change will shape what the eventual answer will be. If you think something this critical can be tied up in a neat little bow for you, I'm sorry but that's simply not the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
