|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 10, 2006 3:37:59 GMT -6
This month's payroll employment increase of 132,000 is less than the 150,000 generally considered necessary to keep up with labor force growth. Below is a copy of the "predicted" employment report combined with the previously reported employment report. The lower copy is of the "actual" employment report of the chart from Friday's employment report from Briefing.com. ACTUAL NUMBERS(The "pre-revision" statistics that were previously posted by Briefing.com are in parenthesis after the currently posted statistics.) Employment of workers in goods-producing fields DECLINED 40,000 in November after declining 62,000 in October. This can be seen at Briefing.com The upward revision of September employment numbers was due exclusively to increases in service-producing jobs. The previously published number of service-producing jobs for September was revised upward by +57,000, increasing it from 154,000 to 211,000. Meanwhile, government employment numbers for September were also revised upward from the previously published 28,000 to 56,000. The increase in government and service jobs was the sole source of the September upward job revision, while Construction & Manufacturing jobs were actually revised downward. The United States continues to lose manufacturing jobs and other higher-paying jobs, while replacing them with low-paying service jobs. Real wages continue to decline for most Americans, while Corporate profits continue to increase astronomically. The economy has been sustained like this through huge increases in "deficit" spending by consumers. This is not a sustainable course, which will become evident in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 10, 2006 8:07:23 GMT -6
Indeed - despites some occasional slight upticks mfg has continued to overall trend downward in job retention and creation during the Bush administration.
What is bizarre about this is that mfrs continue to whine that employees "lack skills" and can't find "good help" which is patently false due to the glut of technical workers now on the market that have gotten out a mfg or are now underemployed.
The service uptick is driven as retailers hire seasonal workers for the holidays. usually about half the hiring gains for seasonal help are shed in Jan and Feb.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 10, 2006 14:09:57 GMT -6
What is bizarre about this is that mfrs continue to whine that employees lack skills and can't find &good help which is patently false due to the glut of technical workers now on the market that have gotten out a mfg or are now underemployed. You're right on target with that. This alleged "skill shortage" allows them to falsely claim that the solution to outsourcing is to increase the education and training of American workers (at the taxpayers' expense, of course), while ignoring the true reason: foreign wage arbitrage. The only "skill" American workers lack is the ability to live on 3rd world wages. Our educational system has been a miserable "failure" at teaching that skill. Worse still is that even if an American worker is 2-3 times as productive as his foreign counterpart, he won't be hired if his foreign counter part only costs 1/50th as much to hire. A less productive, less skilled worker will be hired if the wage differential is high enough. It's not about "productivity." It's about "cost-effectiveness. The most cost-effective worker will be hired over the most productive worker every single time.Is it reasonable to expect American workers to be 50 times as productive as a 3rd-world worker? Is such a productivity increase reasonable if an American Corporation provides the same capital, equipment, and technology to the 3rd-world worker as it does to the American worker? Of course not. Yes indeed. And those upward revisions are exclusively due to increased employment of service sector workers.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 11, 2006 19:55:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 11, 2006 21:56:34 GMT -6
Blueneck,
Thanks for the Sirota link. He's excellent, as usual.
Interesting that he's discussing the potential outsourcing debacle that could result from PNTR with Vietnam. I posted here yesterday on that very subject, trying to show the potential damage this "normalization" could cause. If Vietnam's 43 million workers replaced 43 million American workers, it would cost the U.S. $1.52 trillion in labor/consumer income. Of course all 43 million won't be substituted for Americans. But the potential is there for massive outsourcing of American jobs to Vietnam.
And the potential Vietnam "consumer" market being opened up is an absolute maximum of $43 billion in exchange-traded dollars, as that is the size of Vietnam's GDP. If we captured all of Vietnam's GDP as American exports, it would raise U.S. GDP 3/100ths of 1 percent. Meanwhile, the potential loss in direct consumer income and spending decline from American job loss is $1.52 trillion, or a 12% direct loss in GDP.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 12, 2006 5:44:23 GMT -6
Indeed, yet another fallacy of the pro outsourcing camp, that vast new markets are opening up to US goods and services - HOGWASH!!!! How many Chinese or now Vietnamese are buying Buicks?
The fact that the US trade deficit reached another record high in november without a doubt proves that the "vast new market" argument is false.
On the productivity issue, you'd think comapnies would be falling all over themselves to take advantage of the most productive workers in the world right here in the US, as you obviously get much more return on your labor dollar from more productive workers rather than the less productive.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 12, 2006 19:28:07 GMT -6
Indeed, yet another fallacy of the pro outsourcing camp, that vast new markets are opening up to US goods and services - HOGWASH!!!! How many Chinese or now Vietnamese are buying Buicks? Exactly. Poor consumer markets don't buy significant American imports. This whole idea of "opening up markets to American products" was a lie when first proposed, and it is a lie now. It was never anything but a way for Corporate American to access the cheap labor markets of 3rd world countries. It certainly does prove it false. And the only reason the trade deficit didn't come out worse was because American consumers' ability to buy anything, including imports, declined in November. The value of November exports is essentially unchanged. It's all about the cost per unit of production. Even if a foreign worker is 1/10th as productive, he's a bargain if he costs only 1/50th as much. He's still 5X more cost effective. But again, that "cost effectiveness" comes at the cost of a decline in the value of the American consumer market that buys those goods. Reducing labor costs by eliminating American workers and their income reduces the amount of money Americans have to buy those very goods. It's a lose-lose deal for American workers and consumers.
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Dec 19, 2006 20:10:24 GMT -6
On the productivity issue, you'd think comapnies would be falling all over themselves to take advantage of the most productive workers in the world right here in the US, as you obviously get much more return on your labor dollar from more productive workers rather than the less productive. Actually, it is more like you are taking someone who costs 1/10th as much and is 2x as productive. Low prestige jobs that are outsourced here are high-prestige jobs over there. You get a higher quality worker who will work for less.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 19, 2006 21:38:16 GMT -6
On the productivity issue, you'd think comapnies would be falling all over themselves to take advantage of the most productive workers in the world right here in the US, as you obviously get much more return on your labor dollar from more productive workers rather than the less productive. Actually, it is more like you are taking someone who costs 1/10th as much and is 2x as productive. Low prestige jobs that are outsourced here are high-prestige jobs over there. You get a higher quality worker who will work for less. No, that is not what you get. You get a much less productive worker in most cases, but one who's lower cost makes up for his reduced productivity. And you get products that are poorly made compared to American products (Automobiles being one exception.) If you've ever done any manual labor using tools, you know that Chinese made tools are awful. The steel is inferior and the machining is sloppy. Items like Crescent wrenches will fall apart in less than 8 hours, whereas the equivalent American tool will last for years. And that Crescent wrench doesn't even work well when it's brand new. But, then, the Chinese workers are paid almost nothing. So the multinational Corporation that essentially "owns" the Chinese worker still makes a good profit. Maybe even a bigger profit, since the tool has to be replaced much sooner. The soundbite that "Americans aren't productive" is pure propaganda. The truth is, that a highly productive American worker is more expensive then a less productive foreign worker who makes a pittance of what the American worker does. That's the only reason they're replacing American workers.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 20, 2006 5:25:22 GMT -6
In general the cheap chinese crap imported is of poor quality, as not only is the labor less skilled and motivated, but inferior materials are used. Unfortunately most people think in terms of price rather than value.
On automobiles, I thought it prudent to point out that while the Japanese brands are generally higher quality, the models consistantly cited as top quality such as the Toyota Camry, and the Honda Accords and Civics are produced here in the US by US workers. Honda actually exports vehicles from the US.
The japanese get it about getting the most out of your labor dollar in productive workers.
The chairman of Hyundai recently cited that a reason they chose Alabama to locate their new plant was that the US had the highest productive and most skilled workers in the world.
|
|