View Full Version : With good jobs going away, middle class downsizes
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/11/103600/middle-class-downsizes-as-its.html
I think most folks are sympathetic with blue collars jobs going overseas. Not sure if most realize how many white collar jobs are leaving also. Globalization appears to be a popular movement, but for many Americans it will change their lives in a dramatic and negative way.
The mantra related to job losses is that the folks should retrain, adapt and overcome, but when large corporations ship these jobs overseas, it affects most Americans; not just those who are "down sized."
If I were President, I'd do these to increase jobs:
- Keep the Bush tax cuts.
- Eliminate the Capital Gains tax.
- Give the Military a 10% pay bump.
Reagan turned the economy around in the early '80's by reducing spending and taxes after Carter nearly drove it in the ground. We could do something similar now.
Employers have money, they're just scared to let it loose because of the fiscal uncertainty brought about by four years of the antics of the current Congress.
It's popular to blame Obama but Bush is the one mostly responsible for this mess.
Enough with the one liners tonight. You one liners need to start putting some meat on your posts or you'll be sitting in the bleachers.
So explain what Bush did to cause this since the D's took over congress in 2006 and Obama has been Prsident just about two years now.
Snaquebite
11-14-2010, 18:44
It's popular to blame Obama but Bush is the one mostly responsible for this mess.
Chip B you have a PM......I want to hear exactly how you support this statement.
I think this problem is larger than any one person or politician. Instinctively, it seems it relates more to corporate profits or more to the today's culture . Is it wrong to not always go with the cheaper alternative? I think there are going to be lessons learned here. I would expand, but after three glasses of a good chardonnay, I'll probably be talking gibberish. At least more than normal.:D
1.We went into Iraq without any kind of preparation concerning dealing with the insurgency we dealt with there. It almost seemed like Bush did not expect many of the problems there that occurred.
2. What goals did he set for the war in Afghanistan? Were they ever made public? Alot of people ask me about this and I do not have a answer for them. Recently it has been made public that they will be responsible for their security in three years but Bush is no longer the president.
I'm not sure you are exactly on point. I think the insurgency did not really ramp up until after we had been in Iraq for some time. As far as Afghanistan, he and his crew had a pretty straight forward idea and it wasn't nation building . They wanted to send a message that if you mess with us or if you are closely related to someone who is messing with us, we're going to rock your world. I personally think the message was appropriate and SF delivered it special express!!
I believe it was the right message. You f@#4 with the USA and you do so at your own peril.
This has been a situation decades in the making. As a nation, we have slowed our own industries. Our agricultural industry, once the envy of the world, has changed dramatically. At the turn of the 20th century, over 40% of Americans were employed by farms. Today, it is less than 1%. Our farms are producing more, but employ fewer people due to being run by corporations and advaced machinery. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm
The story is the same for the steel industry, with once proud steel towns seeing some of the highest unemployment in the nation. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Steel_industry,_history
We have given our industrial bases away to other countries. They produce products at cheaper prices which allow the corporations to make more money. Unions once served a purpose, protecting workers from intolerable work place conditions. Today, they only serve to raise production costs to the level that we price ourselves out of business.
With Congress giving up their responsibility of negotiating trade with foreign countries, corporations and lobbyists have been successful in getting trade agreements signed which eventually sent employment overseas. The best example being NAFTA. It was signed by Bush the Elder but passed into law under Clinton who hailed it as his greatest achievement.
We have been the authors of our own decline for a long time.
1.We went into Iraq without any kind of preparation concerning dealing with the insurgency we dealt with there. It almost seemed like Bush did not expect many of the problems there that occurred.
2. What goals did he set for the war in Afghanistan? Were they ever made public? Alot of people ask me about this and I do not have a answer for them. Recently it has been made public that they will be responsible for their security in three years but Bush is no longer the president.
3. China is not all Bush's doing. I believe alot of our issues with them started with Clinton selling them technology, however, there are some serious trade issues with them that need to be straightened out. How much poisoned pet food came over during his term? What about the led paint ordeal? It all happened during his time in office. Many of our jobs went overseas under his watch.
OK explain the relationship between the WoT and the Corporate Tax rate in the US.
What is the tax rate on corporations based in the US vs other countries?
At what rate is a European Company taxed by it's home company on profits earned in America? At what rate is an American Company taxed on profits earned in another country?
Is America by way of taxation and regulation friendly to business or is it anti business?
Would you like to earn more interest when you deposit money into your bank or do you love your bank so much you'll pay them to keep your money?
As others have said this is more than one man or administration. It is a slow grinding down of American Production because of anti business taxation and regulation.
And a tariff is protectionism and an imbedded tax on Americans who buy the item - money that goes straight to the government.
The Reaper
11-14-2010, 22:06
1.We went into Iraq without any kind of preparation concerning dealing with the insurgency we dealt with there. It almost seemed like Bush did not expect many of the problems there that occurred.
2. What goals did he set for the war in Afghanistan? Were they ever made public? Alot of people ask me about this and I do not have a answer for them. Recently it has been made public that they will be responsible for their security in three years but Bush is no longer the president.
3. China is not all Bush's doing. I believe alot of our issues with them started with Clinton selling them technology, however, there are some serious trade issues with them that need to be straightened out. How much poisoned pet food came over during his term? What about the led paint ordeal? It all happened during his time in office. Many of our jobs went overseas under his watch.
Wow!:eek:
Looks like you drank the Kool-Aid. I don't think you have actually read the Iraq and Afghanistan plans or examined the planning in detail, have you? Did you get these points from the evening news, or a newspaper?
What do you think the EPA is doing to manufacturing in the country, along with unions and new regulations?
Bush had a Repub Congress for six years. The Dims have had it for almost four now. Look at what they have passed or tried to pass since they took charge. Very anti-business and anti-jobs. Those jobs are never coming back.
Clinton gave the Chinese MFN status, IIRC, and let the camel's nose under the tent.
TR
[QUOTE]I think they are still the envy of the world, but farming has grown far more efficient. If 40% of Americans were still employed in farming, we would have a much lower standard of living because we would lack the ability to grow enough food unless having a massive portion of the population farming. This would mean no one to do all the other jobs plus it would mean much less efficiency at agriculture.
I agree to a point. Though farms have become more efficient, the actual number of farms and of farming acreage, have declined significantly. Where I disagree is your statement about no one to do the other jobs. What other jobs? There are plenty of jobs available on farms, there are not many people who want to do them. How many people do you know that will work for minimum wage chopping cotton, picking lettuce or fruit, etc.? The jobs are there, the willing workforce is not.
I believe that's just because cheaper steel can be had from other countries, but this helps American manufacturing. Steel tariffs that protect American steel, do so at the expense of other jobs in the economy.
How has union interference effected the price of American steel? Which steel is of higher quality? China keeps the price of their steel low through massive government subsidies and no interference of anti-pollution laws, unlike our own. http://66.39.14.41/new/20070601.pdf
I think NAFTA was a very good thing and hasn't led to America's decline at all. Remember, America still manufactures more than any other nation in the world. China is right on our heals and may eventually surpass us, but American manufacturing is more productive today than ever and has continued growing larger over the years, it's just it's like farming, manufacturing employment has declined, and as a percentage of the economy, manufacturing makes up a smaller percent, but that is due to the growth of the knowledge and services sector of the economy.
NAFTA caused the loss of over 800,000 American jobs, approximately 80% of which were from the manufacturing industries. http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm
Liberalization of trade allows all individuals and businesses to engage in contracts with one another, which creates wealth and jobs. America is fifty states, all of which do free trade with one another. I mean we don't worry about New York businesses "shipping jobs off to Texas" for example. This forms the national economy. The businesses and individuals in these states also engage in trade with other businesses and individuals throughout the world.
States trading amongst themselves still maintains our domestic economy. The money originates and stays within our borders. "Shipping jobs off to Texas" keeps the jobs in the United States. It is much easier for someone to follow a job to Texas than to Mexico or India. It is apples and oranges.
One of the hallmarks of the European Union is to form a liberal area of trade within Europe, so the EU nations can trade with one another easier.
We see where the EU is today. The stronger member nations are taxing their own citizens to prop up weaker member nations like Greece.
Also technologies crucial to the national security should not be sold to other nations, like the advanced computer technologies sold to the Chinese under Clinton.
Agreed 100%
3. China is not all Bush's doing. I believe alot of our issues with them started with Clinton selling them technology, however, there are some serious trade issues with them that need to be straightened out. How much poisoned pet food came over during his term? What about the led paint ordeal? It all happened during his time in office. Many of our jobs went overseas under his watch.
You might say China started with Nixon, and jobs have been heading overseas for decades. I believe the number of jobs and infrastructure lost under Bushes term pales in comparison to the jobs lost in the 1970-80's.
rdret1 note on the steel industry is s good example. When 51% produced domestically qualified as Made in the USA things started heading out outside our borders. Then add that companies received Tax Incentives and Subsidies for Foreign Investment aka move your production offshore. And offshore sometimes entails floating factories, manned by slave labor 'just' outside US Territorial Waters that produce unmarked pipe and fittings that get/got stamped Made in USA.
As for all the tainted products like Chinese toys, drywall, milk, pet food etc.....The EPA and USDA only care when they (The Government and their lobby) can make a buck off it and either drive business to foreign countries -or- into the corporate consolidation scheme.
For example the EPA mandates that to work on houses built prior to 1978 you need to spend $350 to get lead certified, and the EPA will fine little ole me $35k for not following their rules.......but it is apparently just fine if China ships toys with lead on them and WalMart (and other chains) peddles them to your kids to naw on. And then there is the unlicensed Pickup Truck Contractor, the EPA doesn't know he exists and they don't care.....they only pick on the companies that try and do things on the up & up.
Aside from the Unions influence, part of the reason the steel/iron industries left our shore was in large part due to EPA Regulations and mandated clean up (the EPA Super Fund). So we shipped our 'toxic' industries off to China or 'just' across the border from Brownsville, Texas.
The USDA (as does Immigration) turns a blind eye to Don Tyson, but hammers the small farmer. Joe the Small Farmer sells some bad chicken, the number and area affected will be microscopic. Don Tyson ships bad chicken, it has the potential to reach many states and tens of thousands.
Incandescent light bulbs are being taken out of production for more energy efficient fluorescent 'Mercury' filled light bulbs made in China......when did Mercury become Green Friendly and EPA compliant?
It is all madness.
GratefulCitizen
11-15-2010, 12:11
The problem is one of perception.
People don't feel like they're doing well economically unless they are moving up relative to everyone else.
Think about that.
It's not possible for everyone to be "above average" in their income or wealth.
How big is the average home today? In 1950? In 1970? In 1990?
How many hours is the average work-year today? In 1950? In 1970? In 1990?
How many cars does the average household have? In 1950? In 1970? In 1990?
What is the national obesity rate? In 1950? In 1970? In 1990?
We have excess consumer electronics, food, and conveniences galore.
The rest of the world just happens to be catching up with us.
The fact that the rest of the world is becoming richer does not make anyone in this nation poorer.
We should celebrate the fact that so many of our fellow human beings are enjoying ever-increasing standards of living.
There are several types of envy, among them are envy of those who have more than you do, and envy of those who may soon have as much as you do.
In the not-so-distant future, their will be a several billion people in Asia clamoring for goods...which are made in the USA.
They will soon have disrectionary income and want to spend it.
A happy thought of the day:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=321459&postcount=264
Wow!:eek:
Bush had a Repub Congress for six years. The --> Dims <-- have had it for almost four now.
TR
Expert partisan subconscious mental conditioning. Must remain mentally neutral :lifter
I agree that this problem is a child of hundreds of different political fathers. Republicans, Democrats etc.
However, when we don't buy domestic that has a huge affect on businesses.
One line of reasoning I don't understand is "big business wants to hire us, they're just scared of taxes." I could understand small businesses feeling that way, but globalization has led to a lower bottom line for big business. Since the majority of them are in business SOLELY for profit, what do they care if they have to pay (random number alert) 6% more per worker due to taxes rather than the (random number alert) 4% it was before.
Does anyone know if jobs from overseas returned at a higher rate during President Bush's time? I know they haven't with the current President, and President Clinton had an international fire sale. Did President Bush's policies bring jobs back? If it didn't then should we repeat the same tactics now?
GratefulCitizen
11-15-2010, 16:31
Does anyone know if jobs from overseas returned at a higher rate during President Bush's time? I know they haven't with the current President, and President Clinton had an international fire sale. Did President Bush's policies bring jobs back? If it didn't then should we repeat the same tactics now?
The long-term effective tools the government has to promote domestic job growth are deregulation and tax breaks in the industries where job growth is desired.
(Subsidies/tariffs are nothing more than a tax on everyone else.)
Even those tools have their limits.
On a long-term basis, government can't create jobs, they can only remove obstacles and foster a business-friendly environment.
Government isn't the solution, government is the problem.
............ Since the majority of them are in business SOLELY for profit, what do they care if they have to pay (random number alert) 6% more per worker due to taxes rather than the (random number alert) 4% it was before............
What do they care about 2%?
How much should a pair of $15 Dollar pants cost? If I'm just buying a pair of knockabout cargo pants for hiking or working in the yard?
Let's see Target at $15, Cabella's at $29.99 plus shipping or Sears at $32.
When you put your item on a shelf it has to sell before you can make a profit.
You have to balance quality vs price. Sink too much quality into a product and nobody will buy it.
Taxes come off the top - Companies do not pay taxes - the cost is passed on to the consumer in the price of the product or made up for in fired/layed off workers.
Taxes come off the top - Companies do not pay taxes - the cost is passed on to the consumer in the price of the product or made up for in fired/layed off workers.
Agreed. Which is why I asked if anyone was able to find any positive effects in that regard; due to President Bush's tax cuts. It would in theory, have a very positive effect. I heard it time and time again during voting season, but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence from anywhere yet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/the-facts-about-small-business-and-the-bush-tax-cut/61023/
This is an interesting sorta non-explanation of the whole mess. Read the article and you will see why I used the description that I did.
I suspect there are several underlying issues.
The notion of free trade was created circa 1815, and popularized by David Ricardo in 1817. Is free trade really the best approach? I wonder. This is not to say it isn't - but it tends to approach religion in the fervor it generates. There tend to be lots of strong assertions - but I haven't seen much real data.
So - the U.S. and much of the world has embraced free trade. But we didn't start out that way. We protect our industries. Perhaps those more adept with history than I would care to expand on that.
Presently, global wage arbitrage puts the U.S. at a grave disadvantage. It's cheap to hire foreign workers and expensive to hire U.S. workers. So employers have an incentive to do so. With public companies, they are expected to not only maintain earnings, but to increase them - thus creating still more pressure to choose the lower-cost option.
In addition, U.S. consumers tend to want cheap goods. To create goods at the lowest prices, manufacturers must trim wherever they can.
No doubt there are other issues as well. Perhaps diplomacy plays a part, too.
Our national problem is that we have a price structure - and, worse, a debt structure - based on an elevated price/wage level. When we sink to a lower price/wage level...and we will, due to the downward pull of the world labor market....the existing debt will be unservicable. Perhaps we see part of that now?
Will the bond market, particularly the municipal bond market, experience increased risks of default during this structural readjustment? I suspect so.
Bottom line, I think that the embrace of free trade has set off events that were positive for a time, but at the price of subsequent problems. We'll experience those problems for decades to come until global wages come into some sort of equilibrium - or, alternatively, some alternative to free trade asserts itself.
All MOO, YMMV.
GratefulCitizen
11-16-2010, 12:07
Economic cycles happen.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2010/11/renewed-strength-in-goods-exports.html
No long-term good can come from constant government interference and tinkering.
Governments can't keep their own fiscal house in order.
What makes them qualified to engage in large-scale meddling with the entire economy?
Well, Broadsword, let's look at this a bit:
Moving to shield battered domestic manufacturers from foreign imports, Indonesia is slapping restrictions on at least 500 products this month, demanding special licenses and new fees on imports. Russia is hiking tariffs on imported cars, poultry and pork. France is launching a state fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers. Officials in Argentina and Brazil are seeking to raise tariffs on products from imported wine and textiles to leather goods and peaches, according to the World Trade Organization.
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/21/AR2008122102171.html)
OK, this is a 2008 article - but notice Brazil on the list of trade-protected countries. My understanding is that China also has trade protection policies. Each has rapid growth.
But here's the problem. I'm not saying that free trade, as currently practiced by the U.S., is necessarily good or bad. I am troubled by the lack of analysis. People simply say "Free trade is good!" Is it? Is it always?
Keep in mind the tendency of wages I mentioned previously. As pressure on wages increases, the ability to service debt (mortgages, for example) declines.
A Google search on Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, produces articles with quite a different perspective. Which, again, is not to say he's right or wrong, just that there isn't as much depth of understanding of the policy implications as might be appropriate.
Grateful, you mention house sizes. But is that due to free trade entirely? Or are there other factors? Which factors predominate? I suggest that we don't know. So...maybe we as a nation should try to find out before we commit ourselves to that free trade policy.
GratefulCitizen
11-16-2010, 21:40
Grateful, you mention house sizes. But is that due to free trade entirely? Or are there other factors? Which factors predominate? I suggest that we don't know. So...maybe we as a nation should try to find out before we commit ourselves to that free trade policy.
My point was that standards of living keep increasing.
Regarding free trade: if other countries want to tax their own citizens (that's what tariffs are), then fine.
If, in turn, they want to sell us cheap stuff, we will be more than willing to print more dollars to pay for it.
The problems China created for themselves are coming home to roost.
Despite all our dollar printing, China is the place where the inflation threat looms.
Free trade simply means not taxing ourselves for the privilege of having less stuff.
Two points...
First, there does not seem to be a consensus that U.S. standards of living are improving. LINK (http://www.economywatch.com/in-the-news/long-term-decline-in-US-standard-of-living-rockefeller-foundation-02-08.html)
A more complete - and, perhaps, more cogent article appears HERE (http://www.businessinsider.com/standard-of-living-middle-class-2010-10#household-spending-for-the-middle-fifth-of-all-us-income-earners-was-down-35-in-2009-the-steepest-decline-on-record-1)
Now you mention that tariffs or other trade barriers are a form of tax. That certainly seems reasonable. But if we suppose a (government) revenue-neutral mix of taxes, might tariffs be better than some other taxes? For example, if tariffs were high, but income taxes were lowered, would that promote American growth better than does the current mix?
I certainly don't claim to know. But it seems an interesting speculation.
GratefulCitizen
11-17-2010, 13:13
Two points...
First, there does not seem to be a consensus that U.S. standards of living are improving. LINK (http://www.economywatch.com/in-the-news/long-term-decline-in-US-standard-of-living-rockefeller-foundation-02-08.html)
A more complete - and, perhaps, more cogent article appears HERE (http://www.businessinsider.com/standard-of-living-middle-class-2010-10#household-spending-for-the-middle-fifth-of-all-us-income-earners-was-down-35-in-2009-the-steepest-decline-on-record-1)
Now you mention that tariffs or other trade barriers are a form of tax. That certainly seems reasonable. But if we suppose a (government) revenue-neutral mix of taxes, might tariffs be better than some other taxes? For example, if tariffs were high, but income taxes were lowered, would that promote American growth better than does the current mix?
I certainly don't claim to know. But it seems an interesting speculation.
This is kind of the point I was making.
How many times are relative comparisons made?
Why is nominal income such a big issue?
Again, economic cycles happen.
They don't last forever.
How much does the average person have to labor to get a good or service comparable to what was available 10 years ago?
How much did the average person have to labor 10 years ago to get that same good or service then?
We can always moan and complain about the better deal someone else is getting.
We can always moan and complain about how much faster someone else is climbing.
That doesn't equate to our own situation getting worse.
It's just a case of zero-sum thinking.
The marketplace is competitive.
People have to be willing to change with changing conditions.
If we aren't willing to benefit from cheap goods and services produced elsewhere, another nation will gladly step in and enjoy those benefits.
Granting competitive advantage to some of our citizens, at the expense of other citizens, is just redistribution by another name.
Since the majority of them are in business SOLELY for profit, what do they care if they have to pay (random number alert) 6% more per worker due to taxes rather than the (random number alert) 4% it was before.T--
Your statement assumes that there's a connection between profit and costs. In my experience working for a small division of a multinational consumer and business electronics company, the folks who count the beans and their corporate masters see the two as having a more fluid relationship. That is, production costs undermine profitability and should, therefore, be reduced whenever and however possible.:rolleyes:
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2010, 13:58
Economic cycles happen.
This is still the most powerful economy on earth.
A few short articles:
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2010/12/households-balance-sheet-recovery-is.html
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2010/12/unemployment-claims-fall-again.html
And a longer one:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2010/12/10/no,_were_not_no_2_--_yet/page/full/
A new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll -- accompanied by a piece charmingly titled "We're No. 2" -- reports that the attitudes of Americans are about what you'd expect.
Yes, we're a bit pessimistic these days, but let's not get fatalistic. The most troubling aspect of the survey isn't the glumness; it's how willingly we accept myths that threaten our economic future.
Incredibly, only 1 in 5 Americans believes that the U.S. economy is the world's strongest today -- with nearly half of those polled picking China as the strongest power. Only 34 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. will have the world's strongest economy in two decades, and 37 percent believe it will be China.
You don't have to have blind faith in American exceptionalism to know that the U.S. economy, even with the tribulations of the recent years, is still the richest and most productive and innovative power in the world. The private sector isn't collapsing (though we've certainly hit a bump); others just happen to be gaining on us.
We tend to idealize past successes and too easily turn to base isolationist instincts. According to the poll, rather than embrace the immense opportunities of emerging markets, we fear globalization. Guess what? There is no bailout that is going to stop China and India from continued growth, just as there is no tariff that can stop irritating overachievers in Singapore preschools from acing calculus exams.
Other than "college whites," the survey sees most Americans viewing international trade as a bad deal for the United States. Not surprising. We can't go a day without hearing some experts talking about "outsourced" or the equally chilling "You know, we don't make anything anymore."
Economist and columnist Walter Williams provides the best historical rejoinder to this myth. In 1790, he explains, farmers made up 90 percent of the U.S. labor force, yet by 1900, they made up only 41 percent. By 2008, fewer than 3 percent of Americans worked in agriculture. Yet today we have more food than ever -- at cheaper prices.
William Strauss at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago recently explained that the number of Americans working in the manufacturing sector -- about 14 million -- is about the same as it was in 1950. Yet there has been a 600 percent increase in output. That's good news.
It makes no sense for government to prop up nonproductive manufacturing jobs any more than it makes economic sense to artificially prop up farmers. (Oh, I know, we try.) We need far fewer people to work those jobs, but it doesn't mean we don't make anything. But as Williams succinctly points out, "if the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth-richest economy."
Eighty percent of Americans told the National Journal that manufacturing is "extremely or very important to U.S. economic growth over the next five to 10 years." (What do they mean? Manufacturing what?) Sixty-two percent believe it is important for government to help advanced manufacturing industries with "tax incentives and funding."
How many price-fixing fiascos does government have to engage in for us to understand that Washington shouldn't be picking winners in the marketplace? How many wasted dollars will we need to pump into subsidies to understand that the market doesn't care what we think, that it cares what we buy?
Instead of blaming reality and resisting change -- as the new isolationists continue to do -- we have to start owning both.
Entire post.
Walter Williams's take on the "labor force" in late eighteenth century America raises a question.
How is it possible that 90% of the American work force were "farmers" when about 17.831152638% of the population were slaves?
Only 34 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. will have the world's strongest economy in two decades, and 37 percent believe it will be China.
The original author mentions these items, then seemingly dismisses them with a wave of his complacent hand. He does not, however, provide anything to refute those opinions.
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2010, 18:32
The original author mentions these items, then seemingly dismisses them with a wave of his complacent hand. He does not, however, provide anything to refute those opinions.
In absolute size, China's economy may well surpass the US.
In power, not likely.
The Chinese will have their hands full tending to their own demographic implosion.
They are on borrowed time.
Yes, they have lots of IOUs.
Those IOUs will change in value if they try to use them.
National debt and personal debt are totally different creatures.
Money and wealth are not the same thing.
Best analogy I can come up with for money vs. wealth:
Wealth is like a power plant, money is the electrical grid.
The electrical grid makes the power plant more useful, but it does not make any power.
Hanging more wires (or stretching them across the Pacific) will not produce more power, nor guarantee the direction of flow.
<edit>
Scott's latest:
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2010/12/exports-surge-in-october.html
<break>
Walter Williams's take on the "labor force" in late eighteenth century America raises a question.
How is it possible that 90% of the American work force were "farmers" when about 17.831152638% of the population were slaves?
I have to assume that means that someone was partway through the birth canal during the 1790 census, given that there were 3,929,214 people.
17.831152638% * 3,929,214 = 700,624.146
:D:p
I have to assume that means that someone was partway through the birth canal during the 1790 census, given that there were 3,929,214 people.
17.831152638% * 3,929,214 = 700,624.146
:D:pIMO, Mr. Williams is either careless or he subscribes (intentionally or otherwise) to the least sustainable aspects of Ulrich Bonnell Phillips's scholarship.
GratefulCitizen
12-10-2010, 19:31
IMO, Mr. Williams is either careless or he subscribes (intentionally or otherwise) to the least sustainable aspects of Ulrich Bonnell Phillips's scholarship.
I suspect the former.
His point had to do with output and productivity, so he probably didn't consider those details.
He used the terms "farmers" and "worked in agriculture" in parallel, indicating a focus different from the point you mention.
However, your reference of Phillips's work does provide an interesting context, especially considering the near-slavery which exists in parts of China's economy, and the transistion they are facing.
In absolute size, China's economy may well surpass the US.
In power, not likely.
The Chinese will have their hands full tending to their own demographic implosion.
They are on borrowed time.
Let's hope you're right.
Sometime, pick a research university. Go visit the college of sciences. Walk around. Look at the students. I strongly suspect you'll find lots of students that aren't from the U.S. - many are from China. Some are from India. There don't seem to be too many Americans.
Will that investment in intellectual capital pay off for them? Time will tell.
Will they surpass the U.S. in terms of economic power? Again, we shall see.
PedOncoDoc
12-11-2010, 06:08
Let's hope you're right.
Sometime, pick a research university. Go visit the college of sciences. Walk around. Look at the students. I strongly suspect you'll find lots of students that aren't from the U.S. - many are from China. Some are from India. There don't seem to be too many Americans.
Will that investment in intellectual capital pay off for them? Time will tell.
Will they surpass the U.S. in terms of economic power? Again, we shall see.
Foreign graduate/doctoral students seem to be preferntially selected in the ivory tower. They are removed from their family and culture, so they tend to work and take care of bodily functions; not much else. The career academicians know they are geting much more work from these people than they will from anyone else, and I've seen threats of pulling funding from foreign students if they don't pull 14-18 hours daily which would send these students packing. I've also seen foreign grads intentionally have children while in our country then ship the children off to live with the grandparents (perhaps to get around regulations in their own county). The American students (aside from the seeming sens of entitlement they all have), are trying to start/raise families and have a life outside of the lab - this takes away from the cheap labor's productivity which makes them less desirable candidates.
Should our universities be taking our students first and then open unfilled slots to foreign grad applicants? This would take serious reform of the petty games and politics in the ivory tower that none who are "in power" in these institutions want to see happen.
Admittedly, this is a bit of an over generalization, but it is MOO, YMMV.....
Should our universities be taking our students first and then open unfilled slots to foreign grad applicants? This would take serious reform of the petty games and politics in the ivory tower that none who are "in power" in these institutions want to see happen.
You would think. But in the State of Kansas we passed legislation a year or two ago which subsidizes the education of non-citizens in the tune of 14-18 million TAX dollars (per year I believe) and a good portion of that goes to Two Year Colleges.
Minority and non-citizen status also get you to the front of the line when it comes to getting accepted to certain programs like nursing...
It has nothing to do with education, but my wife has $800 taken out for insurance each month......a non-citizen Iranian woman who's husband is barred from entering the US admits her son to the hospital and Medicaid (your tax dollars btw) pays for the entire stay.
I am beginning to think we should all renounce citizenship and come back into the country for a 'Fairer' shake......:mad:
I am beginning to think we should all renounce citizenship ...
Go right ahead - I'll keep mine.
Richard
GratefulCitizen
01-18-2011, 18:05
What are the best jobs going to be this year?
http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/2011-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst
The top 5:
1: Software engineer
2: Mathematician
3: Actuary
4: Statistician
5: Computer systems analyst
All of them are math-intensive fields.
If your kids are young, what are they studying?
If your kids are considering college majors, what are they choosing?
:munchin
http://www.nma.tv/hu-jintao-jets-washington-2/
Well they are just the opinions of average Americans. Just because people may have the opinion that China will have a larger economy in twenty years doesn't mean it will and that because people think this, the burden of proof is to show otherwise. One could flip the argument and say the burden of proof is on folks to show China will surpass the U.S. economically within twenty years.
Proof of predictions about the future? :D
No matter how sophisticated the analysis, no matter how careful those involved, such predictions have been remarkably inaccurate in the past.
So I suppose I'll make my bets, take my chances, and wait for the events to play out.
What are the best jobs going to be this year?
http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/2011-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst
The top 5:
1: Software engineer
2: Mathematician
3: Actuary
4: Statistician
5: Computer systems analyst
All of them are math-intensive fields.
If your kids are young, what are they studying?
If your kids are considering college majors, what are they choosing?
:munchinYou are suggesting that kids should chart their educational paths based upon what the best jobs are going to be this year.
Just how does that method of planning help them?:confused:
FWIW, the current Department of Labor occupational handbook is available here (http://www.bls.gov/oco/) and projections for future job growth are there (http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm).
1stindoor
01-19-2011, 12:00
What are the best jobs going to be this year?
If your kids are young, what are they studying?
If your kids are considering college majors, what are they choosing?
I think this is an over generalization. "Best" by whose standards? I think looking at the Work Environment, Stress, Physical Demands, and Hiring Outlook is a good indicator but in the end I think it comes down to where your priorities lie and job satisfaction. I would much rather work a job that's low paying and gave me family time and fishing time...than work a higher paying job that took those two things away from me.
What are the best jobs going to be this year?
http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/2011-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst
The top 5:
1: Software engineer
2: Mathematician
3: Actuary
4: Statistician
5: Computer systems analyst
All of them are math-intensive fields.
If your kids are young, what are they studying?
If your kids are considering college majors, what are they choosing?
:munchin
I am going to go with the I am going to support my daughter in what she is interested in doing. If she wants to be a bike messenger a stevedore or a Veterinarian its all good by me.
GratefulCitizen
01-19-2011, 18:09
You are suggesting that kids should chart their educational paths based upon what the best jobs are going to be this year.
Just how does that method of planning help them?:confused:
FWIW, the current Department of Labor occupational handbook is available here (http://www.bls.gov/oco/) and projections for future job growth are there (http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm).
The suggestion was that people should take a look; don't read too much into it.
Thanks for the links.
FWIW, historian was in the top ten for both 2010 and 2011.
http://www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/jobs-rated-2010-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst
MOO-
People shouldn't be looking for a specific "job" to meet their long term economic needs.
Personal economic and finance skills are probably more important than specific occupational skills.
As 1stindoor and Sten suggested, there are other factors to consider when choosing an occupation.
I chose not to follow the paths opened by a math education and am quite happy with the results.
Entire postYour two posts argue four points of view. Three of these views--one of which is yours-- disagree with what you wrote in your penultimate post.
So it isn't a case of reading "too much" into what you're trying to say but rather figuring out what you're trying to say.
GratefulCitizen
01-19-2011, 19:49
Your two posts argue four points of view. Three of these views--one of which is yours-- disagree with what you wrote in your penultimate post.
So it isn't a case of reading "too much" into what you're trying to say but rather figuring out what you're trying to say.
Muse, speculate, explore; pick a verb.
Not trying to reach a conclusion.
Detonics
01-20-2011, 03:32
There's a lot of good detail about the economy in this thread. I tend to believe we're discussing symptoms and overlooking the cause of the malaise. If you look back through the last 6 or 7 POTUS, how many would fit the term "Globalist?"
If you see that in 1999 outsiders to the system such as Steven A. Holmes from New York Times business section wrote -speaking about backing unqualified borrowers- that "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. " What do you think the insiders knew?
Perhaps a better question is "How can you have a viable 'Global Economy' with widely disparate standards of living?" My belief is that you can't. You have to bring down the higher nations and bring up the poorer. Known in the modern vernacular as "redistribution of wealth." Look at the philosophy behind the Senate Bill 2433 - Global Poverty Act of 2007 by our current POTUS and I venture you'll find a clue to the true intention in play.
An America in solid financial shape, with average to low unemployment, victorious in its recent military engagements would never allow its sovereignty to be diminished. Not so with a country plagued by financial woes on myrad levels; considering cutting spending for a military actively engaged on several fronts and being systematically attacked from within.
Some fairly noteworthy folks from the past have summed things up better than I probably ever can:
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” –James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order” –David Rockefeller, Sept. 23, 1994