Ain’t no hiring. And ain’t likely to be any for a good long time.
The problem isn’t merely the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. It’s also that big business has found a way to make big money without restoring the jobs it cut the past two years, or increasing its investments or even its sales, at least domestically.
In the mildly halcyon days before the 2008 crash, the one economic outlier was wages. Profit, revenue and GDP all increased; only ordinary Americans’ incomes lagged behind. Today, wages are still down, employment remains low and sales revenue isn’t up much, either. But profits are the outlier. They’re positively soaring.
Among the 175 companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index that have released their second-quarter reports, The New York Times reported Sunday, revenue rose by a tidy 6.9 percent, but profits soared by a stunning 42.3 percent. Profits, that is, are increasing seven times faster than revenue. The mind, as it should, boggles.
How can America’s corporations so defy gravity? Ever adaptive, they have evolved a business model that enables them to make money even while the strapped American consumer has cut back on purchasing. For one thing, they are increasingly selling and producing overseas. General Motors is going like gangbusters in China, where it now sells more cars than it does in the United States. In China, GM employs 32,000 assembly-line workers; that’s just 20,000 fewer than the number of such workers it has in the States. And those American workers aren’t making what they used to; new hires get $14 an hour, roughly half of what veterans pull down.
The GM model typifies that of post-crash American business: massive layoffs, productivity increases, wage reductions (due in part to the weakness of unions), and reduced sales at home; increased hiring and booming sales abroad. Another part of that model is cash retention. A Federal Reserve report last month estimated that American corporations are sitting on a record $1.8 trillion in cash reserves. As a share of corporate assets, that’s the highest level since 1964.
Why invest in new plants, offices and workers, particularly here at home? Spooked by the 2008 crash, corporations want to keep more money under the mattress. More important, they’re sitting pretty as profits rise.
Is this model sustainable? It’s hard to say — a double-dip recession could plunge their profits yet again. But from the American worker’s perspective, the model, no less than a new downturn, is an unqualified disaster. It portends the kind of long-term, structural unemployment that we haven’t seen since the 1930s. It locks into place a generation of reduced incomes.
This dystopian America already stares us in the face. Fully 46 percent of the unemployed have been without work for six months or more — the highest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began measuring such things in 1947. Two years ago, just 18 percent of the unemployed were jobless for more than six months. America’s private-sector job machine — the marvel of the world since 1940 — has clanged to a halt, and there’s no place for it in corporations’ new business model.
The restoration of American prosperity, then, isn’t likely to be driven by our corporate sector. Across-the-board business tax cuts make no sense when business is already sitting on oceans of cash. Targeted tax cuts and credits for strategic investment and hiring within the United States, on the other hand, make excellent sense. The Obama administration has proposed expanding the tax credit for the manufacture of green technology here at home, and congressional Democrats will soon unveil legislation creating further incentives for domestic manufacturing.
Another source of jobs would be public, and public-private, investment in infrastructure. As Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have argued, building a new American infrastructure of roads, rail and broadband is not only an economic necessity but also the investment with the highest multiplier effect in creating new jobs. A U.S. infrastructure investment bank, such as that proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., could leverage significant private capital to begin America’s rebuilding, though the idea has encountered rough sledding in (surprise) the Senate.
What won’t work as an economic solution is blaming the unemployed for their failure to find jobs. There are now roughly five unemployed Americans for every open job, according to the Economic Policy Institute’s most recent calculations, and that ratio isn’t likely to decline much if we leave it to the corporate sector to resume hiring. Corporations have figured out a way to make money without resuming hiring. Their model is premised on not resuming hiring. If the public sector doesn’t fill the gap, the era of American prosperity is history.
— Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
igby (anonymous) says…
It's the frick'in robots!
R2 and D2!
Recession2 and Depression2
Remember what it's like now because in a year we will be so broke, looking back upon today will be the good ole days.
TopJayhawk (anonymous) says…
Got that right Igby.
With tax increases on the horizon, it will be like the thirties all over again.
If Cap and Trade passes, the thirties will look like a picnic.
tange (anonymous) says…
Rebuild it, and they will come.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
There's no big secret here-- 3 decades of class warfare have taken their toll. And the oligarchy is winning in a runaway.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
merrill must have slept in this morning. Normally he'd be copy/pasting on a thread like this like white on rice.
Azure_Attitude (anonymous) says…
Vote republican and that's voting for corporate power and the ruin of the middle class. Remember that in November!
jason2007 (anonymous) replies…
Vote Democrat and that's voting for centralization of power and the ruin of the middle class. The two parties are the same, Azure. Wake up.
Azure_Attitude (anonymous) replies…
I am very much awake, thank you. Cynical much?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
America burns while Obama chats it up with the gals on The View. God help us all!
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) replies…
So, I'm confused. Do you want the government out of our lives or do you want the government to fix all our problems. I guess whatever argument is convenient for you to bash the president, right?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
I want the federal government to lower taxes and stop micro-managing our lives. In my opinion, the only purpose of the federal government is national defense. Obama is doing just the opposite. State and local governments can do the rest.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) replies…
Why should the federal government's only purpose be national defense? Why do you trust them to manage that but not anything else? And, on the same note, how do you expect us to protect us by fighting 2 wars and not raise taxes? It sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
Why should the federal government's only purpose be national defense? Because state and local governments can do the rest.
Why do you trust them to manage that but not anything else? Because nearly every other program is bankrupt.
How do you expect us to protect us by fighting 2 wars and not raise taxes? Bush did it and we are leaving Iraq. Obama has spent too much on entitlements.
I like angel food cake with strawberries!
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) replies…
State and local governments are bankrupt too. They aren't any more capable and just as corrupt as the federal govt. The state of Kansas, arguably the one of most conservative states in the country, is in horrible economic shape.
The wars caused us to go from a budget surplus to a budget deficit, thanks to no tax increases.
Obama is trying to keep us from going into a depression. Had he not inherited a collapsed economy, he wouldn't be bailing anyone out or trying so hard to extend benefits to those who can't find work. If you were in the same boat as some of those people who are about to lose their house and healthcare, you'd be singing a different tune.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
“Obama is trying to keep us from going into a depression”.
No actually Obama is causing a depression with his out of control spending, bailouts and takeovers. Socialism is expensive to implement. Obama doesn’t look at business as the engine of growth, he looks at business as the problem. Obama’s goal is the complete redistribution of wealth. He sat in Jeremiah Wright‘s church for 20 years listening to him preach his hatred of America. He heard things like “no no no not God bless America, G.D. America“. On 9/11 Wright said “America’s chickens have come home to roost“. Jeremiah Wright got so bad Obama had to throw him under the bus during the election just like granny. But he didn't forget.
If you think it’s bad now just wait until January when the Bush tax cuts expire.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) replies…
Thanks for the typical neocon talking points and the complete irrelevant reference to Wright, but the recession was in full force when Obama took office.
His policies had nothing to do with it. He didn't "cause" anything no matter how much you neocons try to repeat it.
He doesn't look at business as the problem, he looks at deregulation as the problem, which it was.
It amazes me that, even though we've had several years of tax breaks by the Bush Adminstration that didn't prevent a financial meltdown, you still believe that tax cuts/breaks are the solution.
And I do look forward to the expiration of tax breaks...last time that happened, the result was a budget surplus. See the Clinton years.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
“You still believe that tax cuts/breaks are the solution“. Yes and even some democrats now agree with me. It may help save their bacon in November.
Btw, the “meltdown” started because the banking queen and his buddies decided that everyone in America should own a home without a down payment or a job. When people couldn’t make the payments the housing bubble burst and the economy tanked.
I’m going to take you off my Christmas list after the “neocon” reference.
Roadkill_Rob (anonymous) replies…
Yes, I know why the "meltdown' happened...deregulation in the banking industry supported by both dems and repubs.
Thanks for proving my point that Obama wasn't responsible.
We can also blame irresponsible consumers who were too dumb to realize they were living above their means and greedy banks too.
Again, you'll notice that Obama isn't either one of these either.
I do believe in tax cuts, but for the middle class. For some reason, neocons don't consider the middle class, even though they represent the overwhelming majority in America and once we have a confident, consuming, strong middle class, we'll be moving in the right direction to get out of this crisis.
The wealthy only find ways to keep the breaks they get, making themselves richer and the poor poorer and the middle class obsolete.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
We are now going in circles and ludus is upset.
Ludus (anonymous) replies…
Ignorance! Moving on.
Ludus (anonymous) replies…
Ignorance! Moving on.
Ludus (anonymous) replies…
Boo, if you reply to one of the responses this far into the thread they just all get listed at the bottom.
Ignorance from rockchalk1977! Moving on.
That should cover the rest.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
They’re coming to take ludus away he he ha ha to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time.
jafs (anonymous) says…
This article should be read and memorized.
Corporate America has found a way to improve their profits by, among other things, laying off more people.
Hmm.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
But with Obama in charge unemployed people can now get a government job if they are ignorant enough to join the union. Or they could just sit at home, watch The View and receive a government check for 99 weeks.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
And what would you like for them to do?
Starve to death?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
Get off their lazy butts and work. It’s really not the taxpayers problem. Have you heard about the concept of “self reliance“?
Ludus (anonymous) replies…
Ignorance! Moving on.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok, let's take this slowly for you.
Business lay people off.
Government doesn't provide any jobs or unemployment benefits.
Where are they supposed to work exactly?
jkilgore (anonymous) replies…
Did you read the article? My god you have a problem. The article states clearly that there are are five people applying for every one job. Get it through your head. People are trying very hard to work. The work doesn't exist. Meanwhile, as this article points out, corporations and the top 1% are making out like bandits. So your answer is to "cut taxes." Why? So the wealthiest will employ more Chinese? That's a solution! People are off of their lazy butts. Why don't you dust your brain off and read?
impska (Sarah Stratton) replies…
I daresay retraining for a different industry might be an option. That's the problem with indefinite unemployment checks - it only serves to delay the move from the old (jobless) industry to an industry with growth.
The government should never offer extended unemployment benefits without coupling it with retraining. This article only reinforces that fact - if the jobs aren't coming back, then they aren't coming back in 99 weeks. Extending unemployment benefits that long is just a way for the government to ignore the problem and buy some votes. Instead of telling unemployed workers "Your jobs are gone, time to move on to something else," they're being told "One day your jobs will magically re-appear, so just sit tight awhile longer." That's not an honest message and it's not a productive one.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I like the idea of re-training.
Where are the new jobs coming from?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
Re-training at taxpayer expense right? Have you heard about the concept of “self reliance“.
Ludus (anonymous) replies…
Ignorance! Moving on.
Jimo (anonymous) says…
It's important to keep in mind that economic theory can be both right and irrelevant.
Economists agree uniformly that increased productivity allows business to both boost profits and wages and historically this has been a path to mutual prosperity.
But nothing says that business must allocate the benefits of productivity to wages. Indeed, human nature as it is, if a business can avoid this and pocket the benefit, ownership will do so. Lowering the tax burden on this type of gain for the wealthy, which is normally paid out in dividends and capital gains, encourages this one-sided outcome. Right now, tax law doesn't care whether a capital gain came from a 2 yr. investment or a 20 yr. investment. Nor does TARP or stimulus money or bank regulation actually require the recipients be hiring employees or lending out money to deserving enterprise.
You don't have to have much insight to grasp that if it is easier to siphon money out of a productive business rather than invest it back (including in the workers that make the money), the desire for short-term instant gratification will prove irresistible to many.
Too much of our economy today inspires a casino mentality to business rather than the long-term, patient investment our forefathers (and mothers) demonstrated. I say a grand compromise: slowing adjust for indexing capital gains for inflation (a huge issue among long-term investors!!) in return for higher overall tax rates perhaps including a stair-step adjustment for the length of the investment and a "stamp tax" on trading to end the massive one-second trades that disrupt the stock market periodically.
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
I have been saying this in different ways on these boards... Corporate greed, enabled by lack of regulation and oversight have shipped jobs away. This is one of the countries biggest problems. There is no way to reasonably argue this point. It is what it is. Period.
Too many people blaming Democrats or Republicans. Both parties are complicit. I often agree with some who complain about Obama spending too much, but at the same time, we have got to invest in jobs that can't be off-shored instead of the historical Republican mantra of protections for Big Business who have only annual reports to publish and justify ridiculous compensations.
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
Greed = profit motive
You want to regulate profit? Who are the corporations? Shareholders, retirement funds are some of the biggest shareholders.
one niche market/the internet was built out with profit in mind. Bill Gates made a few bucks, is he a greedy shareholder, is MS too greedy?
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Or, I guess, you could as easily say the problem is the greed of the American worker, demanding to make so much more than their counterparts overseas. Or, for that matter, the greed of consumers, who wouldn't be willing to pay more for the products to keep jobs here in America.
Neither would be any more correct than your conyention, and the issue is not that simplistic.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Gee, you're all right. It's unconscionable to ship American jobs overseas. We should just keep letting all the illegals in to take American jobs away from Americans right here at home, with the added bonus that the few of us still working get to pay for their education, healthcare, and everything else.
It's always so amusing that all those fine humanitarians who argue in favor of such noble concepts as a living wage think that only applies to Americans. Just as amusing as those in favor of letting anyone come here (legally or not) to take jobs away think we shouldn't bring the jobs to them.
whatthehell (anonymous) replies…
Stay on topic. Two entirely different problems with solutions needed that are entirely different. This is one of the problems with these boards, shifting the topics light years away from where they started. Immigrants, legal or otherwise should pay taxes (which, by the way, will drive up the costs of the services they provide from lawn care, to lettuce picking, to stucco, to roofing... you name it). They need to be here, but they need to compete fairly with legal residents for the work. Now, get back on topic... this board is about the state of employment in the US, how the jobs have been off-shored, how we don't really make much anymore, how unfair competition from overseas has made in unaffordable to keep factories here, and so forth.....
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
And in your little world, whatthe, the problem of illegal immigration is NOT connected to the problem of the loss of American jobs?
Thanks for so aptly illustrating my point: People like you ARE the problem, thinking you can find two separate solutions to two "entirely different problems" when the end result is exactly the same.
Incidentally, when did you join the LJW moderators board?
salad (anonymous) says…
Thanks Republicans! You have done a GREAT job of creating jobs.....in China.
Forever the party of "I got mine, screw everyone else!".
merrill (anonymous) says…
There are a lot of players in this disaster that has been brewing for about 30 years since the inception of the New World Order Global Economy aka Reaganomics which has ultimately become wreckanomics. What became the primary contribution to all of the above was USA corporate America giving the communist Chinese government OUR USA industry and jobs.
Often quoted is the saying the more we shop at Wal-Mart the more USA citizens lose jobs. Wal-Mart is a huge player in promoting the communist Chinese Government make no mistake about this.
Much of the above has been well executed by way of the savings and loan rip off back in the 1980"s which cost the nation tons of jobs as China said come to me. This Reagan/Bush fiasco also cost tons of retired golden agers their retirement programs and pushed them back into the job market..... in order to supplement their social security. These are the kinds of people who understand completely why Social Security Insurance is so important.
The savings and loan rip off cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion. WE taxpayers should not be responsible for such criminal negligence.
The USA witnessed a repeat performance under Bush/Cheney only this time it was 3-4 financial institutions that caused the economy to crumble once again yet twice in 30 years.
This crap is not acceptable.
In essence this economy cannot support white collar criminals,USA corporate America supporting the communist Chinese government and millions upon millions upon millions of USA blue and white collar workers getting dumped in the process. This country is in desperate need of 18-22 million jobs. Where is USA corporate america?
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush Reagan/Bush
merrill (anonymous) says…
In support of my previous post I offer worthwhile coverage of such events:
Obama would not need to be creating jobs if Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney had not cost the country 16 million jobs and tons of retirement money. With support from Brownback,Tihart and Moran.
The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time. George Herbert Walker Bush then took $1.4 trillion of taxpayers money to cover the theft.
If you study the facts you likely would not vote republican for several decades. Study these facts and you will understand my position.
The Global Economy and Reagnomics are absolute failures for the USA!!!
This is what I mean:
1. The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist
"There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and were part of the Bush Jr. administration. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 trillion dollars (note that this was about one quarter of our national debt").
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com...
2. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers
"And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities."
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
3. Only 3 major Financial Institutions Were at Risk In Spite of What Were Told ?
"There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America, Citigroup, those three were clearly in very weakened form. So, many of the other big banks were not.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10...
4. Privatizing Social Security Would Place the Nations Economy at Risk
"Social Security privatization will raise the size of the government's deficit to nearly $700 billion per year for the next 20 years, almost tripling the size of the national debt.
Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk--it would likely put the entire economy at risk."
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The entitlement program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = tax increases for the middleclass.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
You only posted this set of links once today? Are you finally getting tired of seeing them too, merrill?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
whatthehell (anonymous) says…
"I have been saying this in different ways on these boards... Corporate greed, enabled ..."
As long as you believe this, you will be manipulated by those who wish to do so. Our structural unemployment has nothing to do with Bush or Obama or for that matter with corporate greed.
We (both parties) instituted our policy of competing American workers with low paid third world workers. No amount of productivity difference will level the playing field - the difference is too great. The top 3% have benefitted immensely from our open door while most of the rest of us are "marking time" at best. Blaming corporations for doing what they are paid by their "share holders' to do is a wasted effort. Real change (not socialism) is the answer.
If you want good paying jobs here, you need to change the game. My solution is to use the resources available (unemployment and stimulus) to retrain our existing worker pool for targeted new jobs that could be generated. Giving people endless unemployment without change simply means that at the end of the day they still will have no job. We also need to develop an industrial policy to protect those new jobs from being exported. Yes, the government has a leadership role in this.
Have you ever noticed that a lot of the stimulus money is going to "investment" in new technologies? Who gets that investment? Not the line workers. The investment goes to academics and entrepreneurs and yes, corporations who will create (hopefully) the new ideas. In a variant of trickle down those new ideas may generate jobs here for workers. Of course, in the absence of a thoughtful industrial policy they will most likely generate jobs for workers in the third world. Remember Lawrence, not everyone in this country has or will have a college degree.
We opened the door for the corporations to do exactly what they are doing. So far, I have seen no real difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration (or for that matter the Clinton administration) in changing that course. Personally, I think we missed the boat, as I fear a more conservative congress this fall making any changes that might benefit the unemployed and underemployed workers highly unlikely.
booyalab (anonymous) says…
ljworld really outdid themselves with this article. I haven't witnessed such a caricature of anti-capitalist propaganda since, well, whenever the last time it was i found myself 'conversing' with ...aka getting lectured by a gaia/naomi klein/dictator-lovin' dbag.
Jimo (anonymous) replies…
If there is a fact you believe incorrect, please feel free to put that out there. If not, please feel free to clam up.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Despite this article pointing out how there is now one job opening for every five unemployed individuals, Republicans here are claiming that the unemployed need to get "off their lazy butts and work."
Good thing they have illegal immigrants to point fingers at and blame for everything. Doesn't matter that they did nothing about the same exact problem when the Republicans were in charge. Amazing how easily people fall for it.
The "American way" will soon only be a reality for those who live off their dividends. It will have nothing to do with immigrants, legal, illegal, or otherwise.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
I sure would like to have a large yacht like Mr. Kerry. Sounds like Bea only wants to take from the middle and give to her poor person of the week. All creditability dies when you excuse rich people who pay for your party to enforce that redistribution. No thought. Just sound bites!
independant1 (anonymous) says…
3 richest men in america, all dems, greed?
1 William Gates III
#2 Warren Buffett
#3 Lawrence Ellison
Mixolydian (anonymous) says…
Well, obviously of course, all of our country's ills are the result of the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80's as Merrill (nee EarthDoctor of CJOnline) has repeatedly pointed out.
But putting that aside (Please dear God let's put the links aside)....
If GM has been going gangbusters for so long and has all these immense profits piled up in the bank, why did the democrats deem it vitally important to to give GM billions in our money as a "bailout?"
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Many of the jobs in question would have been lost to American workers even if the companies didn't outsource.
Look at overseas customer support. I read an article a few years ago about a certain internet provider catching flak for shipping their customer support overseas. Had the jobs not gone overseas, those jobs would have been lost anyway, either when the company went under, or when they simply stopped providing support. Labor costs for support already made up something over two-thirds of their total expenses. If they had kept the jobs here, they would have been forced to increase their prices, and despite the do-gooders who always say they'd be willing to pay more, realistically speaking almost nobody really is, and there would have been a mass exodus to a less expensive competitor.
Another problem with customer support is that there is always going to be a drop-off in the need for those services as the learning curve progresses. When a new product comes out, there's a huge need for support as people learn to use it and to deal with bugs that weren't fixed before initial release. But let's face it: There aren't very many people anymore who can't figure out how to turn on a new computer and connect to the internet.
And what about all those jobs that have been eliminated by technology and industrialization, or at least *would* have been if they hadn't gone overseas? Paying manual laborers overseas may be cheaper than spending millions of automated machinery, but that machinery is a considerable savings over paying workers in this country. Had the jobs not gone to Mexico or China, the workers would have been replaced by automation anyway. Which, for most things, is inevitable. There are entire factories/warehouses/distribution centers that don't have a single person in the plant, just a few watching the monitors in the control room. Very few things are done by hand, or in a labor-intensive process anymore. Even the local McDonald's is getting by with three people doing what used to be the work of fifteen or twenty before automation.
So what are we supposed to do? Replace the machines to putting people to work building everything by hand? Besides the inevitable drop in quality consistency, what would that accomplish? When Japanese cars started costing as much as American cars, people started buying Korean cars. American companies would never be able to compete, and then ALL the jobs are lost. (Any televisions being made in America these days?) For all the good-intentioned people who *SAY* they'd be willing to pay more, they simply wouldn't be able to. It doesn't matter if you make the minimum wage $20/hour when a loaf of bread costs $15 to pay those workers.
Get real. We don't have elevator operators or milkmen anymore. Whole industries have died off entirely. Those that remain have to be able to sell you the products they buy at a price you can afford. If you're waiting for these jobs to come back, you seriously missed the boat.
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) replies…
Yep, you can always get a job at wally world selling those things you might have once made, but are now made in china, india, vietnam, mexico, etc, etc. You'll even be able to switch over to being a greeter once you get too old to stock shelves.
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
sorry to burst your bubble. wallyworld does not allow one to be only greeter, no specialization. you gotta be able to do more than one job.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
So what's your suggestion for creating jobs?
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
"Creating" is the operable word there. The jobs that are gone are gone for good, like elevator operators, milkmen, and gas station attendants. There will always be a need for some occupations as the population grows; we need food for them, and housing. But even home construction is becoming more 'pre-fab' and less labor intensive, and farming is becoming more machinery-oriented all the time.
It's safe to say that the jobs of tomorrow will look nothing like the jobs of today, just as the jobs of today look nothing like the jobs of yesterday. I anticipate they will be much more service-oriented. But it's a fact of life that as a society progresses from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrialized to technology-oriented, it simply doesn't take as many people to get the necessary work done. Incidentally, this will also happen in those countries we're outsourcing to, eventually.
There was a time when people were self-sufficient. They built their own house, grew their own food, made their own clothes. As time went by, as the population grew, as the workforce became more specialized, they paid someone else to do some or all of those things. Those were created jobs. The laborer or craftsman saw a need that he could fill by selling his services. The key to creating new jobs will be in providing some service that someone else is willing to pay you to do for them.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok - what are your suggestions?
If people can't find work, then they are unemployed.
If all of the labor-saving technologies continue to eliminate jobs, we'll have more and more unemployment.
Right-wing folks don't want government jobs or help for those unable to find work - I guess they think they should just starve.
What's your solution?
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
Okay, one more time.
Throughout the history of mankind, the only way jobs were "created" was when someone decided to specialize in a service or product that someone else was willing to pay for. It probably started when some inventive early human figured out it was more efficient for just one person to make pottery for the entire village rather than everyone in that village needing to have those skills to make the handful of crockery their personal needs called for. To a certain extent, every occupational specialty arose from this process.
We don't have many potters anymore. Or tinkers. Or cobblers, or blacksmiths. Throughout history the need for certain products and services has disappeared, and it had nothing to do with outsourcing.
The only way to create new jobs to replace those no longer needed is to specialize in a product or service that other people will be willing to pay for, preferably one that they can't get from too many other sources. That will work a lot better than whining about jobs that were 'lost' (as if someone owed a living to anyone else).
What are those products and services? If I knew that I'd be an entrepreneur instead of doing what I do. But I don't have to be a rocket scientist and know the best way to travel to Mars to know that a pedestrian bridge isn't the way to go. And your solution? Government jobs? Seriously? Now *there's* a sustainable model. Let's take everyone who's job was no longer needed, put them on the government payroll, so the ever-shrinking pool of private-sector employees can pay their salaries. Brilliant.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
So you have no solution.
Ok.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
I have detailed it twice now, jafs. Sorry it's one you either can't understand and/or don't agree with. But then, I'm sure *YOUR* solution - what was it again, put everyone to work for the government? - will work out just fine.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Some sort of vague "entrepeneurship" statement is far from a solution to massive unemployment and job losses.
My proposals would be:
1. Require all companies doing business in this country to hire a comparable ratio of American workers. And create strong incentives for companies to keep jobs here, and strong disincentives for moving them elsewhere.
2. Reduce the CEO/average ratio to at most 50/1, rather than the 300-500/1 ratio we have now, and require companies to use that money to hire more workers at lower levels and invest in improving/expanding their business.
3. Remove the tax loophole that allows companies to simply "offshore" their profits and avoid paying taxes.
4. Eliminate the waste/fraud/abuse of government programs (estimated at over $100 billion/year by the CBO).
5. Reduce our military spending, and focus more on actual defense of this country.
6. Legalize drugs and tax them - creating new jobs and more tax revenue, decreasing expenditures, and freeing up law enforcement and jails.
7. Eliminate the influence of money in politics, so that elected officials do what they're supposed to do, represent us.
notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…
How about this:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jul...
"Some students look for a cheaper option when it comes to moving, and KU senior Danny Doherty has turned that demand into a profitable business called Student Movers. “It was originally just a Craigslist ad,” he said. “I got a lot of hits there so I put my ad on Google. It’s going pretty well.”
"The 23-year-old has run the business for three years using nothing but his pickup truck, trailer and some helpful friends."
I know it's a completely alien concept to you, jafs, but perhaps if people were responsible for finding their own solutions, instead of demanding the nanny-state take care of them, there'd be more people like Mr. Doherty finding a need and filling it.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's fine.
But given the millions of jobs lost, I don't think this kind of activity will make up for them.
DyerKiev (anonymous) replies…
Buy American made products and services, starting with our governments.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
I think you are way oversimplifying the problem. I have never had a problem with jobs replaced by technology. However, plenty of lost jobs to off-shore resources, aren't about jobs that would otherwise have been automated. Most of them are simply moved to save money with cheaper human labor. The rational to the affected on-shore employees is along the line that only bottom-line, non-essential systems and services will be moved off. All management and specialist jobs would remain onshore.
The people overseas aren't stupid. Once they learn your work, there is no reason to stop at the low-end stuff. Next, you find that it is cheaper to move your R&D overseas. That has already been done in some companies. Plus why have management here? Who better to manage than someone who does the work. For now, the language differences have bought mid-management time. However, eventually there is no reason for their jobs to be safe either. It is also a vicious cycle because as fewer opportunities exist, fewer students get into the field. Then eventually you have to get the work done off-shore because no one knows hardly anything about the profession. Where does it stop?
If the only kinds of jobs that have to be tied to this country are jobs that require the employee to smell and/or touch the employer or customer, then there isn't a whole lot of job opportunities left. We cannot all expect to support ourselves selling lemonade, washing cars, cutting hair, moving people, etc when plenty of other potential local customers will be in the same boat.
I'm am gainfully employed, and hopefully (fingers crossed) I can remain so until I retire. When I first worried about loosing my job, I thought of going into the biological sciences. Unfortunately, a lot of those jobs are also being off-shored. I really do feel sorry for young people in college who want to excel. My best advice to them is to learn Mandarin, Hindi, Turkish, Arabic, Portuguese, and Spanish and then move to Asia or Latin America. The way we are headed, in a few generations America will simply be a footnote in the history books as we descend into mediocracy.
A prosperous country needs to be able to feed, cloth, and provide for its own citizens. What if we really had an aggressive country we had to fight? We are at the mercy of other nations for the fuel. We are at the mercy of other countries for the materials to build ships, plains, tanks, cars, etc. We are at the mercy of other countries to finance our budget. Maybe one day we will be a one world country, but for now we are a world of nation-states, and I don't want to see people half way around the world prospering at the expense of my neighbor. I have to live with my neighbor
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Let us pause in life's pleasures and count its many tears,
While we all sup sorrow with the poor;
There's a song that will linger forever in our ears;
Oh Hard times come again no more.
-- Hard Times Come Again No More - Stephen Foster
Sadly, this song is as relevant today as when written in 1854.
How lucky I have been to have lived in the shadow of 40 years of progressive policies. The forces of conservatism and evil may be ascending over the last 30 years, but I got to experience (albeit briefly) the promise this country still holds when the people take the power away and exercise it themselves.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
Hard times? Hardly, recession yes. '70's economy was worse.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
jafs (anonymous) replies…
So you have no solution.
What is your solution? The idea of ever-expanding government employment runs into the reality that somebody has to produce the money to pay for it. I guess government employees could produce wig its but they would compete with widgets from the third world. Why not just cut the third world out and let the private market produce widgets here.
You seem to reject the notion that a lot of our problem is self-inflicted. Jobs are gone because we created the environment where they would go. That can be reversed. Just protect our people from low cost competition.
The other argument that SEEMS to suggest unbridled capitalism also fails. It drives to the lowest common dominator. The workers get paid dirt, a few do well, and in the end, we have big wars when failing economies go after each other.
The notion that all jobs in the future will be knowledge jobs discounts the fact that not everyone can hold a knowledge job unless we start a process of screening births to limit them to those who can. Knowledge jobs will remain a minority for as long as I can project the future. Maybe by the time of the Enterprise in the 24th Century.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
See my above response to notajayhawk.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
I did JAFS. How are you going to pay for it!!!
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Did you fail to notice the revenue-increasing and expense decreasing suggestions?
Also, the requirements on companies are revenue-neutral and cost us nothing.
Should I repeat myself?
Legalizing and taxing drugs will increase revenue and decrease expenditures.
Closing tax loopholes will increase revenue.
Eliminating waste and fraud will increase revenue.
Cutting military spending will decrease expenditures.
Did you even read my post??
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Mr. Kerry's yacht?
George, what is FoxNews and Rush telling you this week that has you all stirred up regarding Mr. Kerry? Don't they know this week is supposed to be "blame the illegals" week? All illegals all the time! That is what the memo said -- I'm sure you got your copy.
Seriously, where have I written anything excusing Mr. Kerry for anything he has done with or on his yacht? (Am I to assume it is John Kerry even?) I can't even remember the last time I mentioned John Kerry in one of my posts, so your claim that I am excusing him of doing anything recently is a complete falacy. You made it up in a weak and weird attempt to take a stab at me. How foolish and childish.
Whatever.
Keep encouraging people to write things like the unemployed just need to get "off their lazy butts and work." I'm sure that will really help out your "moderate" cause.
By the way, if you are a "moderate," is Glenn Beck a liberal?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Mr. Kerry's yacht?
Are you really as dense as you come across??
Where did your comment on undocumented workers come from? I have posted at length on how to handle that problem. I believe our only differences are in whether we make them citizens or not. Ian asked you why you favor that and you never responded.
My solution to the economic crisis we have is posted above and in a separate blog. Please respond to that??
My comment on Kerry is about the rich benefactors of the Democratic Party (and Republican Party) who I have frequently referred to as elites escaping a fair level of taxation while liberals in this town have problems with the size of my home.
Glen Beck (and his cronies) would shoot me for being way too liberal.
Since you never respond to anything posted with some content, I find it most appropriate to call you a Democratic parrot. I will until you provide substance to the discussion. Otherwise, your demonization of those who disagree with you reflects on your intelligence and your motives. Shades of Nazi Germany in the thirties.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"Shades of Nazi Germany in the thirties."
George, that is a really good line to use when making a statement about someone else demonizing others. Really good.
Now, get back to pointing fingers at the illegal immigrants as being the cause of everything bad happening in America. It is what your Republican puppet-masters demand of you! (I don't believe anyone would think you "liberal." Nice try though.)
beatrice (anonymous) says…
George, if you really don't see how Republicans are trumping up their recent and loud concern over illegal immigration right now as a means to win votes, then you are foolishly ignoring the obvious. (Exactly how much concern was there over immigration when Bush and the Republicans were in office? Why didn't they do something about it then?) They are using it as an excuse to explain the bad economy -- "They are taking jobs away from hard working Americans" -- instead of putting the blame where it belongs, which is their own policies and the ramifications of deregulation. That is how the Republican outrage of the day relates to discussions on unemployment. That, and Republicans slamming the unemployed for being lazy. That really is the topper.
And yes, I didn't see the "news' about a rich guy (John Kerry) taking advantage of a loophole designed for rich guys. How shocking. I'm sure I wouldn't have heard it had it been about one of John McCain's houses, either. Unlike you, I really don't get the party memo. I am quite sure that you do get yours -- provided by FoxNews, no doubt.
Now, can you think of something worse to call me than a Nazi? Things like that always make your arguments so good.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
Bea
I could care less what the Republicans are doing. I don't like many of their positions - too simplistic - like many of yours
I have posted a solution to immigration (it is not theirs) and you have never addressed the substance of those posts. I guess to you anybody that does not agree with your sound bite deep beliefs is "right wing". By your definition the vast middle is "right wing". I guess Ron Dellums is a model of moderation. In your world where does Karl Marx fit?
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
George, when I have attempted to discuss my opinions on your blog, you accusingly stated I was a party parrot. You are dead wrong on that account. I don't get party mailings, I've never once visited the Daily Kos and only visited the Huffington Post when others have provided links to specific stories. I also do NOT watch MSNBC -- I don't like my news so obviously slanted. Yet it is an easy out for you to just dismiss out of hand the comments of someone who doesn't agree with you by claiming nonsense about repeating party rhetoric. Amazingly, you don't seem to even grasp that this is what you have done.
If you are going to be so dismissive and wrong as to my motivations in addressing my personal views, why should I bother to respond again? Just so you can dismiss what I write once more? Sorry, but if I want that to happen I'll just call up the Rush Limbaugh show, or write Cal Thomas a letter. Dismissing out of hand is the type of thing those on the far right like to do.
I can tell that you sure didn't care for it when I gave you a taste of your own medicine by dismissing everything you write as being right-wing memo driven. If you aren't getting your news from right-wing sources, then can you name the other people who avoid taxes by parking their yachts in Rhode Island, or is it only Kerry that gets you upset? As I said, I wasn't even aware of that story of the rich taking advantage of loopholes designed for the rich. Further (and I don't care if you answer this one but to yourself), but how often have you, a self-proclaimed "moderate," voted for a Democrat for any national office?
As far as where Karl Marx fits in the world, he was a 19th-century German theorist whose ideas would lead to the development of Communism. As far as German 19th-century philosophers go, I prefer Friedrich Nietzsche.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
Well bea, if you did I missed it. My perception of your responses is a mixture of name calling ("you are not a moderate or you love Glen Beck") and diversion - back to the three sound bites attacking your definition of the Republican position and restating yours. By the by, I have been trained that way - avoids any move toward solution..
I frequently do not agree with the Republkican position - when I can figure out what it is. I just do not agree with yours. I think mine is mine and I think I am entitled to the distinction. Since it is opinion there is no right or wrong.
That said, you have never responded to the basic difference between my opinion and you opinion on immigration. To wit - why must those here become citizens?
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
I only ridicule people like you after they have attempted to insult me first. You think I am a "party parrot" as you have stated on more than one occassion. You see george, you are the one who started with the name calling, not I.
This makes me wonder, why do you even care to ask me what my opinion on immigration reform might be? Just go to the National Democratic website yourself to find out what you believe my opiniion is.
Sorry george, but you don't get to insult me multiple times and then expect me to play nice and answer your questions and pretend we are just having a pleasant conversation. I tried that, and you are the one who started in with the name-calling because you apparently can't handle people have opinions that differ from your conservative views of the world.
Now, don't you need to get back to FoxNews to hear the lastest on the whole John Kerry's Yacht episode? (Wouldn't it be funny if that really is where you learned of this oh so important story?)
Bye, bye george.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
I did throw the parrot comment but after you demeaned my Moderate handle.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...
Want to rethink that response?
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
You know our little war goes back months. My system would not navigate to your URL. Are you ever going to respond to me question on citizenship?
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
I didn't even know we had anything between us "for months," let alone a little war. How cute.
Again, since you think I am a parrot of the Democratic platform, why do you care what my opinion is? As I stated earlier, if you want to know what you believe my opinion is, go to the Democratic Party website. It will provide you with all the information you think you already know.
Then you can report back to me and let me know what the Democratic stand is. I'll let you know if I agree or not.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
I have sent your name in to the Marines- you will do well in the clinches.
DyerKiev (anonymous) says…
Jobs will be back when our government leaders enforce "buy american" with our taxpayer money.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
It would also help if American consumers also did the same. However, the complication is that this has been going on for so long that what constitutes "American' is a gray area. What percentage of a product needs to be American before it is an American product? A while back that wasn't so hard to figure out, but anymore that is so vague.
camper (anonymous) says…
Hi George. Nothing is ever as it seems or is drawn up. I think we are experiencing some of the flaws in both Capitalism and a more regulated and/or public form of commerce. For this reason I agree with both you and Bea. But because I'm a bleeding heart you can assume where I stand most of the time.
For instance capitalism and free markets are not always looking out for the consumer and/or workers. A blip in the news last week was the Dell computer story. They just got fined 400m by the SEC for not properly disclosing payments it was receiving from Intel in an agreement to not use chips from another competitor. Its not so much the improper accounting disclosure, but the fact that two giants in the tech industry mutually colluded to limit competition. Expanded further, I know that most Dell computers are assembled overseas nowdays.
And in a story today, public entity rural water districts are encouraging competition by seeking water municipalities that can provide good water at a lower cost. This is good competition, and the way things ought to work. Public officials are trying to do the right thing for their constituents.
Wether we like it or not, the US economy is a combination of private and public entities. To think they are mutually exclusive and one over the other is the sole prescription for society's needs is bordering on Utopianism. And Utopianism rarely is unexposed for its flaws. But I doubt you feel this way because this is why you are a moderate and raise good points.
Peace on this Sunday.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
And when did I leave the impression I like business. I managed government contracts and have been had by experts. I have plenty of my own stories. My point is that there is a mix. We probably would not agree on exactly where it is but it is way too simplistic to assume extremes.
If all the energy spent on these blogs were directed to solving the jobs problem we probably would have solved it last month.
Moderate (George Lippencott) replies…
Jafs
Who said they were supposed to look out for you?? "caveat emptor"
We use smart consumers and the government (guardedly) to minimize the excessive of the market.
Did communism really look after the consumer?? It sure limited the consumer’s options.
Government is just another group of people with their own agendas. There is a role but government is not the exclusive answer. In fact, for many of us it has been a big part of the problem.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I was simply responding to camper's comment that they don't "always" look out for them.
I'd say they never do.
Any and all groups of people have agendas.
The problem with systems is that they sound good in theory, but when they're put into practice, the people involved seem to inevitably corrupt them.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Capitalism and free markets never "look out" for anyone - they simply exist to sell products.
Another interesting tidbit about Dell - while shareholders saw the value of their stock drop by 66%, Michael Dell made hundreds of millions.