|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 26, 2007 15:18:15 GMT -6
According to Briefing.com, today's monthly increase in Durable Goods Orders was only 3%, less than 1/2 of the 7% increase predicted by the "experts." In addition, December 2006's monthly Durable Goods Orders were only $221.866 billion, 4% less than December 2005's $230.754 billion. In addition, November 2006's total of $215.209 billion was 4.5% less than the previous November's total of $225.158 billion. October 2006's total of $210.481 billion is 1.6% less than October 2005's total of $214 billion. Below is a composite chart from previous Census Bureau reports on Durable Goods Orders from November 2005 through October 2006. (The Census Bureau's current report can be found at Durable Orders ) The total Durable Goods Orders for the 4th quarter of 2006 was $647.556 billion. This was a 3.3% decline compared to the 4th quarter of 2005's total of $669.912 billion. The Durable Goods portion of our economy is definitely in decline. With the housing bubble collapsing, Durable Goods Orders declining, and the auto industry declining, it's difficult to support the claim of a "strong" economy.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 20:56:56 GMT -6
Manufacturing has been in recession almost the entire Bush administration
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 26, 2007 21:22:54 GMT -6
Funny cause the only "manufacturing" area of the economy "housing" has stayed out of recession during the Bush presidency. Now, it appears that to is headed for a deep recession.
If you ask me, housing, defense buildup, and growth in government have kept the economy barely afloat during the Bush presidency. Without these factors, all bets are off. Sadly it probably will get worse. We do not make much here anymore, and even the "knowledge economy" jobs are disappearing to Asia etc.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 21:27:43 GMT -6
Exactly - don't forget consumer deficit spending from too easy credit and false sense of wealth generated by inflated home values. we are coming to the end of this ride too. Consumer spending has also masked fundamental weakness in the mfg economy.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 9:41:22 GMT -6
Manufacturing has been in recession almost the entire Bush administration Manufacturing has been in decline, AROUND THE WORLD, for decades.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 27, 2007 14:21:24 GMT -6
Manufacturing has been in recession almost the entire Bush administration Manufacturing has been in decline, AROUND THE WORLD, for decades. U.S. manufacturing jobs certainly have been getting "lost" for decades. However, China, India, Mexico, and Central America have been "finding" most of our "lost" manufacturing jobs. And they haven't returned any of them.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 27, 2007 18:02:51 GMT -6
". However, China, India, Mexico, and Central America have been "finding" most of our "lost" manufacturing jobs.
And they haven't returned any of them. "
Not true, China has been losing manufacturing jobs aswell.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 28, 2007 4:35:28 GMT -6
". However, China, India, Mexico, and Central America have been "finding" most of our "lost" manufacturing jobs. And they haven't returned any of them. " Not true, China has been losing manufacturing jobs as well. Yes, it is true that China has not returned any of those jobs. But China has also lost some jobs to even lower wage markets, like the Kaesong area between North and South Korea, where jobs are being filled by labor from North Korea. These workers are is paid even less than impoverished Chinese workers.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 28, 2007 6:48:40 GMT -6
And Indonesia and Vietnam
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 28, 2007 12:31:10 GMT -6
" it is true that China has not returned any of those jobs. But China has also lost some jobs to even lower wage markets, like the Gaesong area between North and South Korea, where jobs are being filled by labor from North Korea. These workers are is paid even less than impoverished Chinese workers. "
No, China, like the US and most other countries are losing unskilled manufacturing jobs due to automation.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 28, 2007 13:29:14 GMT -6
" it is true that China has not returned any of those jobs. But China has also lost some jobs to even lower wage markets, like the Kaesong area between North and South Korea, where jobs are being filled by labor from North Korea. These workers are is paid even less than impoverished Chinese workers. " No, China, like the US and most other countries are losing unskilled manufacturing jobs due to automation. It's true that China is losing some jobs to automation. But that's more than made up for by the number of American manufacturing jobs that have "immigrated" to China. The biggest threat to Chinese jobs are workers in lower-wage areas, such as North Korea. However, there is still no shortage of American manufactures who're willing to move production facilities to China and replace American workers with Chinese workers.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 28, 2007 13:31:39 GMT -6
I am going to go back to two orignial points we were discussing and try to get you to see the flaw in your logic. 1. Your claim that raising minimum wage will increase consumer spending 2. Your claim that it is consumer demand that creates jobs. 1. I have heard many Progressives make this claim, including M. Moore, and it proves to me that Progressives have a faulty understanding of economics. To my original example of a small business with 1 owner and 10 employees, with minimum wage raised from 5.15 an hour to 7.15 hour – collectively gives them $800 more to spend a week. What you and others fail to understand is that whoever paid them that $800, the owner or customers through higher prices, now has $800 LESS to spend a week. Moving that $800 spending from the owner/customer to the minimum wage earner doesn’t increase spending, it only SHIFTS it from the owner/customer to the wage earner. There is the flaw in the logic that raising the minimum wage increases consumer spending. But to the far more important point of what is wrong with raising minimum wage. It doesn’t help the minimum wage earner one bit. I can say this as I spent most of my adult life living on minimum wage. The current proposal by the Democrats is going to add about $80 a week to their paycheck, or $320 a month. To a minimum wage earner that seems like a lot. It isn’t, it doesn’t help them a bit, it only hurts them because it DISCOURAGES them from taking the actions to better themselves. Here is an example: “The 29-year-old from Chillicothe, Ohio, is graduating Dec. 15 from a nine-month welding program at the Hobart Institute of Welding Technology. He's received three job offers, paying $16 to $19 an hour, or more than three times the federal minimum wage. The companies are also paying medical benefits, offering 401(k) plans and paying for additional training.” www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-12-05-skilled-workers-shortage_x.htmHere is somebody who in just 9 months gained the skills to make more than 3 times the minimum wage. The Dems proposal would raise the minimum wage earner’s paycheck $80 a week in 2 years, with 9 months training this man increased his wage a minimum of $440 a week and more likely $560 with FULL benefits. THAT is a big difference. And even MORE importantly he has now started to CLIMB the economic ladder, with a few years of experience under his belt, some more training, maybe an industry certification in a specialty or two and he could double his income. By the age of 40 he could easily be making $40 or $50 an hour in his field. That would by $80K or more a year, and that combined with whoever he married doing something similar they would have a very good income. But raising the minimum wage discourages min wage earners from trying, it did me, it did everybody else I grew up with in the poor neighaborhoods and communites, as I have been around poverty my whole life. From the age of 17 to the age of 37 my total combined income for those 20 years is less than $70k. I now make nearly that in one year, and I am now on my way to increasing that by 50% within 3 years, and another 25% in another 2 years. ALL through effort on my part. An expenditure of effort that is next to impossible to get those trapped into poverty to see will greatly benefit them, because they are shackled into the mindset that it is the government’s responsibility to better their lives, not them. This has been told to me by those I grew up with a thousand times or more. That is why even as a minimum wage earner I was for the complete elimination of minimum wage, and still am. Now to #2, that jobs are only created by increased consumer demand. This is from my personal experience, which at the time I was a progressive socialist democrats. Eleven jobs created by an entrepreneur who had no product, just an idea. There was absolutely no demand for the product for which this guy had an idea for. NO DEMAND, zip, zero, nada, because nobody had ever heard of it before and didn’t know they needed or wanted it. Yet eleven jobs were created. How? From investment by the affluent, over 8 months $1.7 million investment raised. During that 8 months, not a single sell, not even a working prototype to sell, still just an idea in development. No sells, no demand yet 11 jobs created. Once they had the product and presented to customers and convinced them they needed it THEN there was demand, so much demand that now the company employs over 100 people. Not a single ONE of those jobs would have been created without that investment from the affluent, they are the only ones who can afford to invest $25k to $50k at a pop. And they wouldn’t have had that extra capital if their taxes hadn’t been cut just a few years earlier. Very few people who make even $1 million a year will invest that kind of money on just an idea when their taxes are 70%. But with taxes half that they have much more capital to take the risk with. Human nature, the few resources you have the more you focus on preservation of those resources, the more you have the more risk you are willing to take. Bottom line, ZERO demand, ZERO products, ZERO sales, ZERO revenue, yet 11 jobs were created, and in less than 10 years turned into over 100 jobs. NONE of the jobs would be created without that capital investment from the affluent. Now replicate that 10’s of thousands of times across the country each year and you have job CREATION. It is that RISK taking that we want to encourage by cutting taxes on the top income earners, their risk in investing in ideas, and the risk by entrepreneurs who absolutely need that capital to get started. The item I am disussing was an IT item that went into laser printers. The tax cuts of the early 80’s freed up massive amounts of capital, a great deal of which was invested in 1000’s of companies like this one, little companies like Microsoft, Apple, Computer Associates, Oracle… all of which led to the tech boom of the 90’s and the huge increase in productivity due to the widespread adoption of information technology, creating millions of new good paying jobs that didn’t exist.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 28, 2007 13:33:52 GMT -6
" it is true that China has not returned any of those jobs. But China has also lost some jobs to even lower wage markets, like the Kaesong area between North and South Korea, where jobs are being filled by labor from North Korea. These workers are is paid even less than impoverished Chinese workers. " No, China, like the US and most other countries are losing unskilled manufacturing jobs due to automation. It's true that China is losing some jobs to automation. But that's more than made up for by the number of American manufacturing jobs that have "immigrated" to China. No, China like most countries has had a NET loss of manufacturing jobs, far more than has been lost in the US.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 29, 2007 16:35:23 GMT -6
No, China like most countries has had a NET loss of manufacturing jobs, far more than has been lost in the US. Do you have any references or statistics to back that claim?
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 29, 2007 18:07:57 GMT -6
I too question this claim. There have been reports of corrections due to overcapacities created by the rapid growth. There has also been reports of high turnover among china's factory workers due to long hours, dirty and unsafe conditions for low pay. But I would venture to guess that the net gains of china's factory jobs far out pace the losses of US factory jobs.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 29, 2007 22:19:10 GMT -6
One thing about China is a certainty-- that they have a surplus of labor. According to the CIA's assessment of China, " From 100 to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs...." Surplus labor means no upward pressure on wages, and no reason to believe the purchasing power of Chinese workers will increase from such wage increases. The myth that China will somehow become a large consumer of American production is pure Right-Wing Corporatocratic nonsense. There's nothing driving wages upward with that many workers unemployed. It's the same situation that occurred in Mexico following NAFTA -- more unemployment, and even lower wages. ----------- Either of the following links to the CIA information on China may work. Both work intermittently, depending on whether the CIA feels like letting the public see this "highly classified" economic information about China. The CIA changes its links more often than Bush changes his story as to why we invaded Iraq. (Hopefully I won't get waterboarded for posting these "top secret" links.) ChinaChina
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 30, 2007 5:23:11 GMT -6
Ah yes, the old "rising tide lifts all boats" canard. That only works if you have a boat!
The mexicans around the maquiladoras still live in plywood shanties with sewage and trash in the streets, and the numbers of illegals crossing the border has increased since Nafta (No American Factories Taking Applications).
|
|
|
Post by ig on Jan 30, 2007 6:08:23 GMT -6
i got them from a robert reich presentation. ill look for the stat
|
|
|
Post by ig on Jan 30, 2007 11:19:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 13:35:55 GMT -6
No, China like most countries has had a NET loss of manufacturing jobs, far more than has been lost in the US. Do you have any references or statistics to back that claim? "Over the past decade, U.S. manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 11 percent, Miklovic noted. But at the same time, Japan’s manufacturing employment base has dropped by 16 percent, while the number of manufacturing jobs in countries including Brazil have declined by some 20 percent, he pointed out. “And one of the largest losers of manufacturing jobs has been China,” Miklovic added. “We like to pick on China and say that all of these jobs are going to China, but they’re losing jobs in manufacturing as well.” www.automationworld.com/view-320"China is losing more manufacturing jobs than the United States. For the entire economy between 1995 and 2002, China lost 15 million manufacturing jobs, compared with 2 million in the U.S., The Conference Board reports in a study released today" Matthew Spiegelman, Economist at The Conference Board and co-author of the study, notes: “The U.S. lost 202,000 textile jobs between 1995 and 2002, a tremendous decline by any measure. But China lost far more jobs in this sector –1.8 million. All told, 26 of China’s 38 major industries registered job losses between 1995 and 2002.” www.conference-board.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=2432The culprit, both here and abroad, is automation.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 13:49:12 GMT -6
One thing about China is a certainty-- that they have a surplus of labor. According to the CIA's assessment of China, " From 100 to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs...." Surplus labor means no upward pressure on wages, and no reason to believe the purchasing power of Chinese workers will increase from such wage increases. The myth that China will somehow become a large consumer of American production is pure Right-Wing Corporatocratic nonsense. There's nothing driving wages upward with that many workers unemployed. It's the same situation that occurred in Mexico following NAFTA -- more unemployment, and even lower wages. How Rising Wages Are Changing The Game In China "But lately the company has seen its margins shrink to 5% -- half what Yongjin made when it opened its factory in the steamy southern Chinese city of Dongguan 14 years ago. Why? Labor shortages are forcing the company to boost wages. Last year salaries surged 40%, to an average of $160 a month, and Yongjin still can't find enough workers. " www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977049.htmThe myth that China will somehow become a large consumer of American production is pure Right-Wing Corporatocratic nonsense. There's nothing driving wages upward with that many workers unemployed. It's the same situation that occurred in Mexico following NAFTA -- more unemployment, and even lower wages. Not production, services, as they already have.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 13:50:43 GMT -6
Ah yes, the old "rising tide lifts all boats" canard. That only works if you have a boat! They already have a boat, it is call their labor. Which is a huge improvement over living on the streat.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 30, 2007 13:52:26 GMT -6
ig, Thanks for the link to Reich. Unfortunately, Reich's most current information in the article ran only through 2002. He stated there was a 15% decline in manufacturing jobs in China between 1995 & 2002, while there was only an 11% decline in the U.S. during that time. But Reich is wrong about the decline in the U.S. During that time, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. also lost 15% of its manufacturing jobs. In December 1995, the United States had 17.23 million manufacturing jobs. In December of 2002, it was only 14.9111 million. In fact, by December 2003, that number had declined to 14.296 million. In fact, manufacturing jobs actually increased 2% from 1995 to 1997. And the decline after 1997 was still greater. From a peak 17.587 million manufacturing jobs in December 1997, there was a 19% decline down to 14.296 million jobs in December 2003. We have continued to lose manufacturing jobs since that time, but at a much slower pace. Below is a table from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing U.S. Manufacturing job loss.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 30, 2007 14:05:38 GMT -6
One thing about China is a certainty-- that they have a surplus of labor. According to the CIA's assessment of China, " From 100 to 150 million surplus rural workers are adrift between the villages and the cities, many subsisting through part-time, low-paying jobs...." Surplus labor means no upward pressure on wages, and no reason to believe the purchasing power of Chinese workers will increase from such wage increases. The myth that China will somehow become a large consumer of American production is pure Right-Wing Corporatocratic nonsense. There's nothing driving wages upward with that many workers unemployed. It's the same situation that occurred in Mexico following NAFTA -- more unemployment, and even lower wages. How Rising Wages Are Changing The Game In China "But lately the company has seen its margins shrink to 5% -- half what Yongjin made when it opened its factory in the steamy southern Chinese city of Dongguan 14 years ago. Why? Labor shortages are forcing the company to boost wages. Last year salaries surged 40%, to an average of $160 a month, and Yongjin still can't find enough workers. " This is the difference between basing your case on one employer's anecdotal story, instead of larger, all-encompassing overview like the one done by the CIA. There are 100-150 million surplus Chinese workers as per the CIA assessment. There is no labor shortage in China. Nor is there one in the United States. There is only a shortage of jobs. But there is no "shortage" of employers falsely claiming a labor shortage, either in China or the United States. Welcome to the alternate reality world of fact creation. And goodbye to the fact-based reality world.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 14:16:44 GMT -6
This is the difference between basing your case on one employer's anecdotal story, instead of larger, all-encompassing overview like the one done by the CIA."
If you bothered to read the WHOLE story you would see it isn't just one, it is China wide.
As for the CIA study they are UNSKILLED labor and unskilled labor is in decline everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 14:26:52 GMT -6
Welcome to the alternate reality world of fact creation. And goodbye to the fact-based reality world. I used to be a progressive liberal, I want no part of your fantasy world, I choose to live in the reality based world.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 30, 2007 16:58:29 GMT -6
This is the difference between basing your case on one employer's anecdotal story, instead of larger, all-encompassing overview like the one done by the CIA." If you bothered to read the WHOLE story you would see it isn't just one, it is China wide. " Last year salaries surged 40%, to an average of $160 a month, and Yongjin still can't find enough workers..." There's a simple solution to Yongjin's "problem." Pay the market rate for labor, instead of whining and lobbying the government for some kind of assistance, like an American Corporation would do. Raise salaries further, to retain workers. How complicated a solution is that? If you can't get enough workers at a "whopping" $160/month salary, offer $200/month, or $300/month. Especially when there are still 100-150 million unemployed Chinese workers available for jobs. " The maker of air conditioner compressors has seen turnover for some jobs hit 20% annually, and Emerson General Manager David Warth says it's all he can do to keep his 800 employees from jumping ship to Samsung, Siemens (SI ), Nokia (NOK ), and other multinationals that are now operating in the tech manufacturing hub. "It has gotten to the point that we are just swapping folks and raising salaries," says Warth...." That's not a "labor" shortage. That's an employee compensation deficiency. Warth simply wants to get workers on the cheap, so he can maintain his exorbitant profit margin while selling his goods to the very American workers he's put out of work. (Interesting how the article has to quote an greedy American investor, who's replaced his American workers with low-wage Chinese workers. And now he's whining because the starvation wages he's paying Chinese workers aren't high enough to keep them working for him. Poor baby. My heart just bleeds for this greedy scumbag.) " Wait a minute. Doesn't China have an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor? Not any longer...." Ah! There's the real problem. There's no shortage of labor, only a shortage of cheap labor. Just like the U.S. There's no shortage of workers, just a shortage of employers willing to pay enough to keep workers. " From the textile and toy factories of the south to the corporate headquarters and research labs in Beijing and Shanghai, the No. 1 challenge today is finding and keeping good workers...." No, their challenge is to find and keep good cheap workers, rather than having to convert them into good, well-paid workers. Life sure is getting rough for the rich Corporate managers. They just can't seem to keep increasing their exorbitant, multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Poor babies. That must be soooo hard on them. Thanks for reminding me to read the "whole" story. It's even more disgusting than I originally thought.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 30, 2007 19:11:01 GMT -6
"There's a simple solution to Yongjin's "problem." Pay the market rate for labor"
"That's not a "labor" shortage. "
That is exactly what it is, if there was enough skilled labor it would be replaced when it jumped ship, instead of trying to hire them back. Do you know ANYTHING about business?
" There's no shortage of workers, just a shortage of employers willing to pay enough to keep workers. "
Nobody said there was, only a shortage of SKILLED workers.
"No, their challenge is to find and keep good cheap workers, rather than having to convert them into good, well-paid workers. "
No their challenge is to find SKILLED labor and keep them.
"Life sure is getting rough for the rich Corporate managers. "
They aren't the ones having the problem.
"Thanks for reminding me to read the "whole" story. It's even more disgusting than I originally thought. "
More proof of your ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 30, 2007 23:03:16 GMT -6
"There's a simple solution to Yongjin's "problem." Pay the market rate for labor" "That's not a "labor" shortage. " That is exactly what it is, if there was enough skilled labor it would be replaced when it jumped ship, instead of trying to hire them back. Do you know ANYTHING about business? Do you know anything about logic or common sense? I do know a lot about business scams and Corporate con-artists. To paraphrase the market analysts of today, the markets are "glutted with workers," and "skilled" ones at that. The skilled workers we had in the past who are no longer employed didn't just vanish from the face of the earth. The workers that have been laid off in the past are still there and available for work. The Corporate propagandists who write the mythology that you quote just don't want to pay enough to hire them. The statistics are clear on this issue, and I've posted them here multiple times. Once again, in past days companies trained welders, ironworkers, burners, and shipfitters themselves, rather than piss and moan about not having enough workers, simply because they're too cheap to train new ones or pay enough to retain the old ones. Once again, companies like Bethlehem Steel and Kaiser Aluminum used to train their workers from scratch. I know, because I was one of such workers that they trained. My brother-in-law was one such worker trained by Alcoa. And I was trained how to weld and burn FROM SCRATCH, and at Bethlehem Steel's expense. That's what companies do when they are truly desperate for workers with skills-- they train them themselves. Today they spend their excessive profits and earnings paying economic prevaricators and media propagandists to publish their tales of woe. And they spend their exorbitant profits lobbying Congress for more Corporate welfare and handouts, and more laws to protect them from competition, and higher limits on the number of low-paid, high-skilled foreign workers they can hire to replace higher-skilled, but higher-paid skilled American workers There is no shortage of workers. And there's absolutely NO shortage of "skilled" workers, either. And there's no shortage of overpaid & under-worked CEO's and Corporate management, no shortage of economic propagandists, and no shortage of media mythologists to deceive the public. No, but the proof of yours is now conclusive.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 31, 2007 5:17:17 GMT -6
I think UC was being facetious
|
|