Where have all the jobs gone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by TC:
"Where have all the jobs gone?" That's an easy one, with a two-part anwswer:

1. To be specific, it's a bit over 2 million jobs lost since Bush took office.

2. They've largely been "outsourced" overseas, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. Or so suggested Bush's Chief Economic Advisor, Greg Mankiw, when he recently wrote that outsourcing would prove "a plus for the economy in the long run," and was simply "a new way of doing international trade."

P.S. Sorry, conservatives...ya can't pin this one on Kerry. Perhaps you can spread rumors that Mankiw's secretly working for the Kerry campaign! Yeah, that's the ticket!


Oh TC what will we do with you.
rolleyes.gif


Of course its absolutely Bush's fault that all these corporations decided to outsource various jobs. A little bridie told me so.

On a serious note. In some recent articles I've been reading in Buisnessweek and Fortune predictions are that these outsourced jobs will return within about 5 years because in the long run there is actually no savings for the companies who have gone down this path.

One example that was brought up was the hidden costs of outsourcing so much software development. Direct control over the end product is much less. Security issues (like stolen or leaked code) become a huge and costly concern. Turn around time for debugging of software suffers, resulting in delayed releases.

Another topic addressed was the recent move to outsource call centers to India. The article mentioned that this has backfired for many companies. Customers are fed up with the dealing with someone half a globe away for local support issues who lack the language skills (and I mean the contextual skills developed from actually living within the culture you are providing service for).

The articles' main point was that its only a matter of time before companies begin to realize that outsourcing to other countries only makes sense in certain business situations and that generally there is no costs savings and in many cases increased costs and increased problems by going this route.
 
quote:

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Technology puts everyones job at risk.

You are correct. Technology has also historically created more jobs than it displaces, and I haven't read any compelling reason for this not to continue. The US has too many lazy whiners that expect to be doing the same job for 50 years, and demand government to make it so. Foolhardy to the extreme.

I have no idea what your 150 million unemployed number represents. Apparently 50% of the US is out of work, including children and retirees? Who knew!

Have you tried getting a job as a horse and buggy driver or gas lamp lighter lately? There must be 100% unemployment in those industries. You can not protect jobs in industries that are in transition.

Keith.
 
Forkman,
Here Here!
cheers.gif
Eventually companies will find out that not ALL jobs can be outsourced. There is even a cost to the company for doing so. Some companies look just at the wages and not at the "total cost" for outsourcing. But also smart companies look at the TOTAL cost to operate here versus in a foreign country. When doing this, much of the blame for moving can also be attributed to all levels of government regulations heaped on business in the US. While I'm not thrilled at companies outsourcing to other countries I wish NJ would do that for state matters you have to call the state for. I have to honestly say that I've had an easier time understanding a technician in India than a goverment worker in Trenton when I need questions about business or personal tax and other regulated matters answered
grin.gif
.

Whimsey
 
Keith, Yea I went back to the chart, it's hard to understand the columns as they come out un-aligned with the headings, told you to check my math. My numbers are way to high of course. I was trying to show the human interpretation of just quoting %'s. I did research different web sites and found all sorts of ways to interpret the data depending on what you wanted to portray. Here's a short read which adds to the debate.
http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/rifkin05.htm
 
FORKMAN: Since your post was purely opinionated, and devoid of facts, I'll fill in the facts for you, using some common lies/misconceptions as headings:

1. The unemployment situation is somehow exaggerated:
"Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml

2. It's not fair to blame Bush for the unemployment situation, as he's against outsourcing himself:
From the just-released annual Economic Report of the President: "When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically. This allows the United States to devote its resources to more productive purposes."..."The statement, which reflects standard economic theory about the efficiencies of trade, was denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike...Even Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to the White House protesting at the claim."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/20/politics/main601336.shtml

3. Those jobs will somehow come back since outsourcing will "backfire" on the firms:
"U.S. companies are expected to send 3.3 million jobs overseas in the next 12 years, primarily to India, according to a study by Forrester Research."
http://wesley.stanford.edu/library/articles/hottopics/offshorejob.html

Forkman: If you're going to mouth opinions, at least have the facts to back 'em up. One can train a chimp to give opinions, but facts are much more useful to the rest of us.

[ February 25, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by TC:
"Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics."

As usual, election year doom and gloom is overcoming rational thought. A look at Household Surveys rather than Payroll Surveys paints a different picture:

Another data point

Newsmax is definitely a dubious right wing web site, but the quoted facts and analysis by Alan Greenspan and others are well worth a read.

Keith.
 
Keith: I didn't make up "2.7 million jobs lost," and it isn't "doom and gloom overcoming rational thought." It's a factual statistic provided by Bush's Bureau of Labor Statistics. No need to have this simple statistic shaded by a "dubious right wing web site" (thanks for the warning).
 
quote:

Have you tried getting a job as a horse and buggy driver or gas lamp lighter lately? There must be 100% unemployment in those industries. You can not protect jobs in industries that are in transition.

Nor can you protect perfectly intact industries from going elsewhere for a few dollars "less".


What most of you are whining about is the perceived threat to our way of life. Yet the solutions that you offer ..basically protectionism - taking us out of the global loop ...would threaten YOUR way of life even more.

..or did Marx have it right? Amerika for Amerikans??? All will be rich because none will be rich ..none will be poor ..because all will be poor???

Oh, I get it ..I should assure that some of you have 6 digit incomes ...and you'll assure that I have a high 5 digit income ...and I'll assure that someone else has a middle 5 digit income....
rolleyes.gif


I btw, WAS a middle 5 digit income person (6 digit household) and am now a lower 5 digit income person (still 6 digit household income - my wife is amazing
grin.gif
) Yes, I'm still "little people"*

*Leona Hemsley lexicon of social/economic higherarchy

[ February 25, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
 
Will anybody that thinks America can continue as an island of cheap gas and high wages for unskilled labor let me know. I can make you a great deal on a bridge.

Seriously, we are getting the shaft in some cases. In other cases we are shooting out selves in the foot. Too much of America's prosperity goes down the drain with our bureaucracy, arcane tax laws, and litigation. I am disappointed how little Bush has accomplished in these area. He got shot down on his steel tariffs. As bad as he is doing, I am afraid Kerry is proposing to drill holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water out.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TC:
FORKMAN: Since your post was purely opinionated, and devoid of facts...

Forkman: If you're going to mouth opinions, at least have the facts to back 'em up. One can train a chimp to give opinions, but facts are much more useful to the rest of us.


You're a hoot and a holler TC...
And nice ad hominem attack. It's good to see that you've managed to bring this discussion down into the realm of mud-slinging and personal attacks. Thank you for you effort kind sir, and good luck on future success at doing the same.

I see you pull your tactics straight from the typical liberal "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" play-book and the if you can't beat them or at least have a logical civil discussion assassinate their character school of thought.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TC:
It's a factual statistic provided by Bush's Bureau of Labor Statistics. No need to have this simple statistic shaded by a "dubious right wing web site" (thanks for the warning).

I certainly think it is only fair to warn you of contrary opinions, especially those based on factual data.

If you do have anything in response to the Newsmax article, especially any of the facts therein, I sincerely welcome your analysis. There are no right wing facts by the way, there are just facts. If you believe they are wrong, let's discuss why and not simply dismiss them because you fear the messenger. It certainly is a fact that the unemployment rate today is lower than the 1990's average, from Bureau of Labor statistics. It is a fact that the unemplyment rate today is much lower than the 1980's average, from Bureau of Labor statistics. The unemployment rate is dropping, and all indicators are that it will drop significantly from now until November and beyond.

I don't doubt the Bureau of Labor statistics, but I only have to open my eyes to see that things are not as bad as some want you to believe. The local factories and shopping malls are very busy in my community, lots of new cars in the parking lots, and mega dollar homes are sold as fast as they can be built. Consumer debt isn't increasing fast enough to finance all of this. No matter the statistics, I know what I see and trust my own judgement a lot more.

Of much more interest is the shift in jobs as we outgrow mature technologies and develop new ones. This is the real interesting story. The new jobs are generally not replacing the old jobs, they really are new jobs. Many of my friends have changed career path in the last few years, and I am also going that way. I am working two jobs, both part time, plus going back to school for a doctorate in a new field of study. Gave up a well paying full time job because I believe it was a dead end. Never been happier or more optimistic than right now. Folks that expect to be doing the same job for 50 years, and demand government intervention to make it so, are not helping themselves. A little attitude adjustment goes a long way.

I don't trust, or need, Bush or JF Kerry to help me out. Who is going to get the h*ll out of my way.

Keith.
 
needtoknow, we have to compare apples to apples. Unemployement numbers have never included those who have stopped looking, just as they have never included the "household survey" which would inflate employment numbers.

As a % unemployment may be at the historical low end, but tell that to the guy who can't find a job or is working for 60% of his former compensation.
 
Originally posted by Gary Allan:
[QB]

What most of you are whining about is the perceived threat to our way of life. Yet the solutions that you offer ..basically protectionism - taking us out of the global loop ...would threaten YOUR way of life even more.

..or did Marx have it right? Amerika for Amerikans??? All will be rich because none will be rich ..none will be poor ..because all will be poor???

I don't think there are any "whiners" or Marxists here. What we are questioning is the path the U.S. is possibly taking and what effect it will have on the country as a whole. Sorry if we all don't wave the flag in our arguments. I for one don't advocate protectionism and I think that a lot of the problems with America now have developed because historically we were an island of domestic tunnel vision. That mentality still exists. Americans know very little or care about what is happening outside the country. Most ordinary people don't even want to know what goes on outside their own county. That narrowness feeds ignorance which gives a false sense of comfort. Is your solution to just do nothing? In my own State I see many structural problems in government as well. We still have 100 counties that were created in the horse and buggy days all with their own governments and political reps. Very costly and cumbersome. The poor counties don't even try to consolidate services. A lot of the ridgid attitudes boil down to political turf and peoples unwillingness to get involved in local politics. Keith, I'm not sure what you mean by Bush or Kerry getting out of your way?

[ February 26, 2004, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
 
quote:

I don't think there are any "whiners" or Marxists here.

Yes, some are whining and what some suggest would not be unlike Marxism ...they just don't realize it yet because they haven't followed it out in a linear path far enough.

No flag waving necessary for my sake. My point was that the statement 'an America for Americans" (which some here have certainly implied) ..will end up meaning Amerika for Amerikans.


quote:

Is your solution to just do nothing?

No. We need to continue to do as we have always done. As our "Titanic" is slipping below the waterline ...we must continue to expand the part that remains above the water.

The entire PLANET flourishes or fails by 1% of our population who is either working or unemployed.

If we are at 6% unemployment or above ..we are in recession and so is the rest of the world as the "whip cracks" (tail wags
dunno.gif
)

If we are below 5.x% unemployment ...we have an expanding economy that funds the world economy via our credit.

quote:

In my own State I see many structural problems in government as well. We still have 100 counties that were created in the horse and buggy days all with their own governments and political reps. Very costly and cumbersome. The poor counties don't even try to consolidate services. A lot of the ridgid attitudes boil down to political turf and peoples unwillingness to get involved in local politics.

How this internal consumption of $$$ can effect our status and life style is beyond me. By streamlining those things you mention ..you merely make those who live off of it unemployed. Where do they get their living from then?

It was the same delusion of the peace dividend. It too never truly materialized since it destroyed as much of the local economies as it saved.

Kick the bums off of welfare? Trim the civil servants that service them? Naw ..doesn't work. All those people take up space and spend every dime that they receive. You don't gain anything by moving them outside the public dole.

[ February 26, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
 
Gary, there is for sure money to be made from running an inefficient economy, just how long it will last and how much pain it will cause (to whom) when it comes to an end is the question. The proper distribution of income and how it's achieved is always the argument. No government involvement is not the answer, neither is too much. Our present obesity epidemic shows that no government involvement (or the type of) can be costly as well. The food industry is given free rein to make the food and advertise the food. Thing is it's costing everyone in higher insurance premiums and tax dollars for the health care. Industry instead of trying to help just cares about how much money it can make, but the consequence of that action is taken off of someone elses books. To say people should just eat better is not working, people aren't programmed like that. Life is never free it's just distributed differently. As well the government subsidizes corn production so that high fructous corn syrup (sweetner) is so cheap that it's used in very large percentages. I would say that no management by government is very costly. It's not Marxist, just good management.
 
Isn't the real unemployment rate around 8% though? Many economists point out that after unemployment benefits run out, those people are taken out of the labor pool as people actively seeking employment.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
Isn't the real unemployment rate around 8% though? Many economists point out that after unemployment benefits run out, those people are taken out of the labor pool as people actively seeking employment.

The real rate is higher, as it would have been for the years 1992 to 2000. Bush bashers, and I am not putting you in that category, seem to think that the unemployment numbers are artificially low for Bush, but were accurate for Clinton? I wasn't born yesterday.

Keith.
 
My point is that if you look at the hard numbers (like we have recently been doing in my intermediate macro-econ class), the number of people who's enemployment benefits expired is dramatically higher than during anytime during the Clinton administration. That's not Bush bashing on my part, it's cold hard fact. It means the stats are kinder to Bush than Clinton.
 
I know how to use the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site too, but still not buying the Bush doom and gloom argument. I wouldn't even try to compare 2003 to recent years, but maybe to 1991/1992? In other words, compare years when we are coming out of a downturn.

Keith.
 
Oh, by far the recession of the early 90s was worse than the beginning of the 21st century, but we were coming off a period of very high inflation and record (% GDP) fiscal defecits that were contrubiting to that inflationary pressure. That was at the end of a period of massive government spending coupled with tax cuts, which spurred healthy GDP growth during that period, but shifted the economic burden to the future, and it caught up exactly when Bush 1 was running for re-election. Dubya may not fallter this time, but the future will have to pay for this robust economic growth we are experiencing now. With the present value of government obligations from now till 30 years out being higher than it has ever been, making the real defecit dramatically the highest % of GDP it has ever been, I do not think now was the time to run 500 billion a year defecits to our oustanding 7 trillion, that's all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom