|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 17, 2006 13:51:17 GMT -6
The following is a November 22nd article from the Washington Post by author Harold Meyerson " The Democrats' Economy Wars
By Harold Meyerson Wednesday, November 22, 2006; A21
When voters went to the polls this month, they registered not only a revulsion with the Republican regime but also a profound -- almost un-American -- anxiety about the nation's future. They ousted incumbents who wanted to stay the economic course, choosing instead Democratic challengers who questioned free-trade orthodoxy. In the exit polling, a plurality said they believed that life for the next generation of Americans would be worse than it is today.
All wings of the Democratic Party seem to understand the extent of America's economic problem. The architects of Bill Clinton's economic and trade policies, as well as their more liberal critics, all agree now, in the words of Clinton Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, that "the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth -- and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking." The era of globalized free trade that Summers and his iconic predecessor at Treasury, Robert Rubin, sped on its way, Summers admits, has benefited many Asians and, here at home, has been "a golden age for those who already own valuable assets. . . . Everyone else has not fared nearly as well."
Concerned that the American dream is fading for the middle class, and fearful that said middle class may turn against the global free-trade order he helped erect, Rubin has created the Hamilton Project, which, in the spirit of its namesake, our first Treasury secretary, proposes a series of enlightened Tory solutions to address these conundrums. The project has called for greater public investment in education, health care, research and development, and infrastructure; balancing the budget; and wage insurance for workers compelled to take lower-paying jobs in our Wal-Mart-ized economy.
But are these solutions remotely adequate to the problem, which is ultimately that of wage convergence in the globalized economy? Even its proponents seem not to think so. "Let us be frank," Summers wrote in a Financial Times column. "What the anxious global middle is told often feels like pretty thin gruel. . . . [More] education [can't] be a complete answer at a time when skilled computer programmers in India are paid less than $2,000 a month."
When Rubin was pressed by the Nation's William Greider in June as to whether he thought the project's proposals would arrest or offset the global convergence of wages, he said, "I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the answer to that question is no."
For the Democrats who now run Congress, not to mention those planning to run for president, the fact that the party's economic gurus have devised a policy that they themselves believe isn't up to the challenge at hand can't be greatly heartening. Happily, this is not the only project whose work the Democrats will be able to access. This June, in response to the Hamilton Project's creation, a group of some 50 liberal economists loosely affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) began work of their own. Their project, yet to be named (its founders have resisted the temptation to call it the Aaron Burr Project), will be unveiled in January.
The fundamental difference between the two projects -- that is, between the two primary schools of Democratic economics -- is that Rubin's largely believes the rules of the market to be immutable and sound (though it's precisely the rules of the market that are depressing American incomes), while EPI's, in the words of economist Mark Levinson, "rejects the notion that what has happened to this economy is inevitable. Policy can turn this around." (Full disclosure: Levinson is an old friend.)
For starters, EPI's project will call for a pay-or-play health insurance system (employers can cover their own employees in private plans or pay taxes into an expanded version of Medicare that will cover everyone else) and for a retirement system in which employers can offer their employees pensions or, with their employees, pay into a system administered by Social Security. It will suggest a series of policies to decouple globalization from downward pressure on wages -- adding some enforceable labor standards, for instance, to the rules of the World Trade Organization.
Less cosmically, economist Jeff Faux1. pointedly asks, "Why should middle-class taxpayers fund Harvard to dream up new products that will be made overseas? We need to condition greater R&D funding to production here at home."
Over the next two years, both projects will barrage the Democrats with their ideas. At times their perspectives may converge. (Rubin seems to be edging closer to acknowledging a need to reestablish workers' rights to join unions, long a priority of the EPI crowd.) But the creation of EPI's project balances the scales in the Democratic universe. The Hamilton Project is the policy voice of the party's largest business donors. In the project to be unveiled in January, the party's voters get a policy voice, too.
meyersonh@washpost.com" © 2006 The Washington Post Company________________ 1. Jeff Faux is the author of the book Global Class War, which is an outstanding expose of the origin and progression of the Globalization/Free Trade/Outsouring mess this country has gotten into, with particular attention given to events under the Clinton administration.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 17, 2006 15:43:47 GMT -6
An excellent article.
basically the American public was sold a bill of goods on this. We were promised that new high tech and better paying jobs would replace the few lost to outsourcing.
we were told that it would help slow if not stop the flow of illegal immigrants, high tide raising all boats it was said
It would help stabilize unstable third world countries.
Vast new markets for US products and services would be opened.
Well, more than a decade into it what exactly have we to show for it?
Where are the high tech jobs? all in India - IT and engineering are being outsourced at the fastest rates.
What about illegal immigration? we are at record numbers, and mexican citizens still pretty much live in squalor in the maquiladoras, well at leat they moved up to plywood shanties from cardboard shacks.
Stability? hardly.
Vast new markets? this one was obviouse BS, how many people in 3rd world countries were really going to buy a cadillac or a whirlpool?
All this has done was squander the hard work of our parents and grandparents to make this a better country and a better standard of living for their progeny.
Many of us from the true labor movement weren't buying any of this line from the start, yet Rubin et al sold us out.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Dec 26, 2006 13:06:17 GMT -6
"basically the American public was sold a bill of goods on this."
No, they are BEING sold a bill of gods and you have bought it completely.
"We were promised that new high tech and better paying jobs would replace the few lost to outsourcing. "
They have.
"Where are the high tech jobs? "
They are still here in the US and demand is growing.
"Vast new markets?"
We have been having record exports for years.
"ll this has done was squander the hard work of our parents and grandparents to make this a better country and a better standard of living for their progeny. "
There has been no squandering, Americans are living better than ever and there is no sign that will change.
|
|
|
Post by liberalcapitalist on Jan 3, 2007 19:35:05 GMT -6
"There has been no squandering, Americans are living better than ever and there is no sign that will change." the Easter Bunny said so.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 3, 2007 20:34:11 GMT -6
Good one liberlacapitalist ;D
Record trade deficits anyone? Bueler?
The two things we have any real exportation advantage of are Aerospace and agriculture, two areas we are rapidly losing our edge on.
Where? what jobs?
There you go again libslayer, where do you get this stuff? is this what hannity is telling you? There is no question that the US has lost over 1/3 of its manufacturing base and at current rates all but the most time critical, perishable, government regulated or uneconomical to ship manufactured goods will be gone from the US by 2020.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 4, 2007 22:14:15 GMT -6
Over 300,000 high tech computer jobs were lost in California since Bush stole his first election.
Monthly statistics clearly indicate an ongoing loss of higher-paying manufacturing jobs. If those jobs have been replaced with anything, it's been with real estate agent jobs and service sector jobs.
And we continue to import H1B visa holders to do the truly "higher-paying" jobs for a lower wage than Americans will do them for.
There's no debate whatsoever that Corporate profits have grown tremendously, while wages have stagnated. That's indicative of a weak job market, and increased profits gleaned from the downward pressure on wages and the resultant reduction in labor costs.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 6, 2007 14:33:38 GMT -6
Not to mention the obscene salaries the CEO's and other executives get, which tends to skew the "average wage numbers" to look better than they really are.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 7, 2007 1:08:23 GMT -6
Not to mention the obscene salaries the CEO's and other executives get, which tends to skew the "average wage numbers" to look better than they really are. It has no affect on wage numbers as they aren't inclued in the wage numbers. And what the shareholders CHOOSE to pay the CEO's is nobody's business but theirs. "AP) Shareholders of Exxon Mobil Corp., whose last chief executive took home $147 million when he retired, overwhelmingly rejected resolutions to rein in compensation at the oil company's annual meeting on Wednesday" www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/31/ap/business/mainD8HV0UK00.shtml
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 17, 2007 15:31:48 GMT -6
It has no affect on wage numbers as they aren't inclued in the wage numbers. It definitely has an effect by reducing the amount of money available to pay production workers. Only the large shareholders have any real influence in determining CEO and Corporate management salaries. Small IRA holders and 401K holders are completely out of the loop in determining CEO and management salaries. The majority of shareholders in number have no influence whatsoever. It's not a "one-man, one-vote" situation. It's a " one-dollar, one-vote" situation.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 19, 2007 5:46:09 GMT -6
Not sure what you mean by that Libby, but all wages are used when they calculate the various income groups and the average wages. The increases in the higher income brackets (mid six figures and up) have gone up 17-20% in most brackets, while those under this figures have stagnated or declined as much as 1-3% - very well documented by numerous sources. So yes the high income numbers skew the overall averages.
And it IS everyone's business what executives are compensated, especially in publicly traded companies. The light of day is the greatest disinfectant, and if more were aware of the obscene amounts of money some of these guys were making, would not only help investors and consumers alike make better informed decisions, but may help to prevent the next Ken Lay, Dennis Koslowski, Bernie Ebbers or the latest greedy loser Home depot's Nardelli. More transparency for executive compensation is needed, not less.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:43:01 GMT -6
There you go again libslayer, where do you get this stuff? is this what hannity is telling you? There is no question that the US has lost over 1/3 of its manufacturing base and at current rates all but the most time critical, perishable, government regulated or uneconomical to ship manufactured goods will be gone from the US by 2020. No, no question at all and the sooner they are all gone the better for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 22, 2007 13:47:16 GMT -6
" Where? what jobs?" U.S. manufacturers getting desperate for skilled people Updated 12/5/2006 www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-12-05-skilled-workers-shortage_x.htm"The labor market is hot and getting hotter, and that is one of the reasons the Fed continues to raise rates," said Drew Matus, a senior economist at Lehman Brothers in New York. www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/04/news/bxecon.php Florida, with a 3.4 percent jobless rate, and Montana, with 4.3 percent, in October recorded their lowest unemployment rates since record-keeping began in 1976, www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/04/news/bxecon.php"Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development notes that economic momentum is "already strong in North America and most of Asia" and is now "well established in Japan," with Europe "progressively recovering."" www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb06/2779For computer science in particular, the need for workers will far outstrip the available talent. www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb06/2779Labor Crunch Pushes State Government IT Departments Toward Outsourcing www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/story/0,10801,108154,00.html?SKC=careers-108154 September 27, 2006 "What we see from this is that tech companies are hiring for technical positions inside the U.S., but they're having a hard time filling those positions" www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=careers&articleId=9003689&taxonomyId=10&intsrc=kc_topBut the reality of the 2006 job market is that it's the strongest in five years for the nation's 1.4 million new graduates, whatever their major, as seniors finally have the luxury of choosing among multiple offers from employers promising good pay and perks. Employers report that they're planning to hire 14.5 percent more new college grads this year than they hired in 2005 -- and at starting-salary offers that are up 6.2 percent on average to $45,723 from a year ago, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports. Demand was so strong at the University of Texas at Austin that employers were turned away at the McCombs School of Business fall career fair after signups last summer reached capacity 150 recruiters. seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/265212_classof0603.html% of people who have jobs who work more than one is down y/y... www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 22, 2007 17:06:10 GMT -6
Libslayer, Again, you''ve done quite a bit of research. However, you've simply cited isolated stories to support an incorrect conclusion. Not only do the macro figures prove you wrong, but my own personal experience also indicates that you're wrong. I've worked extensively in the iron and steel working industries myself, and am moderately proficient at welding. I used to work in the shipbuilding industry as a shipfitter, which is the rough equivalent of an ironworker. Most welders historically have also been employed in the steel industry, shipbuilding & repair, and non-residential construction. The shipbuilding industry has almost completely vanished from the United States. The steel industry has virtually collapsed as well. For example, Bethlehem Steel's huge steel mill and shipyard in Baltimore, which was the largest employer in Baltimore in the early to mid 1970's, has disappeared. In contrast, however, the workers who performed that labor are still available. These industries employed large amounts of welders, ironworkers, and shipfitters. And most of those employed in those fields are now working elsewhere. But the workers who did those jobs (including yours truly), are still available. The real problem is that the few employers remaining aren't willing to pay high enough wages to attract workers. Since 1972, manufacturing wages have not kept pace with inflation. Though nominal wages have increased 4.43-fold since December 1972, the consumer price index has increased 4.73-fold since December 1972. Nominal manufacturing hourly wages were $17.10/hour in December 2006. Had wages increased at the same rate as the consumer price index, hourly wages would have been $18.32/hour in December. That means that "real" (inflation-adjusted) manufacturing wages have declined 6.7% since 1972. Meanwhile, manufacturing employment has declined 3 million since Bush first took office. At the same time our population has increased 15-18 million. Since December of 2000, the manufacturing hours index has declined from 113.8 to 95.2 in December of 2006. That's almost a 20% decline. Since 1979, the number of people employed in manufacturing has declined from 19,300 to 14,100 in December of 2006. With obvious declines in both long-term manufacturing employment, and short-term manufacturing employment, it is simply preposterous for anyone to claim they "can't find enough workers." The problem is NOT being unable to find enough workers. The problem is that employers aren't willing to pay enough to hire enough workers from the huge SURPLUS of manufacturing workers we currently have. The unemployment rate has been rendered completely useless by the manipulations of the Bush dictatorship. It's been artificially lowered by simply reclassifying unemployed workers as "not-in-labor-force." The true unemployment rate would be around 7% if the government hadn't dishonestly removed 4.3 million unemployed workers from the "participating" labor force, and reclassified them as "not-in-labor-force," instead of unemployed. A better measure of employment, and more difficult for Right-Wingers to manipulate, is the employment-to-population ratio. That level stood at 63.4% of the working age population in December 2006. In contrast, it stood at 64.4% in December of 2000. This can be seen in the chart below from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is NO shortage of manufacturing workers, nor is there a "shortage" of workers with the necessary skills. There's only a shortage of employers willing to pay enough to hire them. The free-market to solution is to raise the "price" of labor, which will increase the "supply" available. It's amazing how Corporatists and Right-Wingers talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to "free" markets. They love "free" markets when it increases their profits. But they hate free markets if it shrinks their bottom lines. Today's Corporate "free-market" advocates are complete hypocrites. They don't want free markets. They simply want unlimited freedom to charge as much as possible, while bypassing the free market when it comes to labor costs. They want the "freedom" to break the law and hire low-wage illegal labor, in addition to the "freedom" to move their production facilities to countries employing slave-labor. They want the freedom to extend patents on their goods, so they can eliminate all competition and exert complete monopolistic market control over prices. They want the freedom to charge American taxpayers as much as they want on government contracts, while denying taxpayers the "freedom" to bargain collectively to lower prices. Right-wingers have redefined "free markets." Their beliefs are more consistent with "freedom to profiteer." Their version of "free markets" is freedom from profit-lowering legislation, freedom from obeying current law (i.e., illegally hiring illegal immigrants), and freedom from competition when market forces lower their profits. When Right-Wingers barf up their "free market" hypocrisy, their true motive is to push this country further in the direction of a Corporate plutocracy. What they really want is the "freedom" to become as rich as they want, without any hindrances from the law or from the free market. Maybe it should be called a Corporate "Hypocri-ship."
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 22, 2007 18:14:22 GMT -6
Working in manufacturing most of my adult life, I can assure you there is no shortage of manufacturing workers, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and in between. As already stated over 3 million manufacturing workers have been put out of work thanks to outsourcing and voodoo economics. Every day on the news is more bad news for US based manufacturing, layoffs, downsizings, plant closings. The auto industry and construction industry being down exacerbate this. Students are reluctant to study engineering and other technical disciplines because they percieve it to be dying. When i was going to engineering school in the late 80s there was real demand - tech school enrollments swelled, pages and pages of job ads for engineers, tool makers, and technicians indicated the demand - recent grads and experienced workers could name their price. Now that was demand. Today - only a smattering of want ads for technical workers in manufacturing, and the starting pays would be an insult to an experienced skilled workers, and the stats are showing that recent grads are seeing declines in entry level wages as well.
This so called skill shortage is really right-speak to justify outsourcing and importing low cost workers both legally thru H1-B's and illegally. It is also rooted in this bizarre notion that the most productive workers in the world are somehow too stupid and lazy to do manufacturing work.
Nope there is no shortage of manufacturing workers, only a shortage of employers willing to pay a fair market price and provide stable and gainful jobs.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 22, 2007 19:03:04 GMT -6
This so called skill shortage is really right-speak to justify outsourcing and importing low cost workers both legally thru H1-B's and illegally. Exactly. Every bit of macroeconomic information indicates that we have a surplus of skilled labor and manufacturing industry workers, and a shortage of jobs for those workers. That's why manufacturing wages are declining. Furthermore, if we had 3 million more people employed in manufacturing in 2000, than we do at present, how could we now have a "shortage." Did all of these manufacturing workers die? Did they move to another country? Were they abducted by aliens? Maybe they completely lost all of their skills over the last 6 years? Maybe all 3 million of those workers are in Iraq, and not available for work. Maybe they all turned to a life of crime and are now in prison. In reality, this "shortage" of workers is just more illogical Right-Wing alternate reality. Below is a chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the decline in the index of manufacturing hours. Again, there's been a 20% decline in the index of hours worked. If there are 20% less hours being worked in manufacturing than in 2000, how could we now have a shortage of workers to work at level that is only 80% that of 2000? Is our population declining? Maybe they got "new" jobs in the "new" economy. Like flipping burgers at McDonald's. Or selling real estate. Or working for the NSA wiretapping American citizens. Exactly. It is ludicrous to even suggest there's such a shortage. There's not a single isolated fact or statistic to support such claims. All there are are these anecdotal stories by some whining employer who's lobbying to increase H1B visas in order to hire workers who'll work for less.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 22, 2007 19:11:29 GMT -6
Of course my examples are anecdotal, but I know of several manufacturing workers that have gotten out of the business, most due to closings and layoffs, but some because of the desire for more "secure" work. At least those that didn't get abducted by aliens 2 Engineer brothers - now run a trucking company. Skilled Mechanic - driving trucks Certified Welder - stocking store shelves Engineer - installing satellite dishes engineering recent grad - fixing copy machines And so forth. Why are we citing Montana and Florida in a discussion of manufacturing job loss? Neither of these states are exactly what one would call heavily industrial. Florida is primarily tourism, agriculture and industry related to elder/retiree care, Montana is agriculture and mining primarily. If you want to talk manufacturing states and job loss - we should be talking about Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey - these states make (or made) up the lion's share of the US industrial base, all having significant and largely documented manufacturing job and infrastructure loss.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 22, 2007 19:23:45 GMT -6
That is quite a dramatic drop off after 2001, and it coincides with what we in the manufactruing service and supply sector refer to as "when the faucet was turned off". Which is is exactly what it seemed like when the Bush economy kicked in fully.
Except for a few blips and minor upticks, overall the manufacturing sector has lost jobs at least 10 out of twelve months each year under Bush- the overall trend has been down down down.
Under Clinton we still had closings and downsizings, that is true, but we had not yet reached the tipping point and growth in other sectors helped to mask it. There was sustainable growth in the Clinton economy.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 22, 2007 20:11:49 GMT -6
For completeness I'm posting the table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the manufacturing employment from January 1966 through December of 2006. It's easy to verify the 3 million jobs lost under Bush from this table. Also easy to verify is the fact that manufacturing employment is still declining. The only job "growth" taking place is in service-sector jobs. The decline in manufacturing started slowly under Reagan, picked up speed under Bush I, recovered some under Clinton, and then fell off a cliff under the current administration.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 22, 2007 20:38:57 GMT -6
Pretty compelling evidence that there is no such thing as the so called manufacturing worker shortage. Any suggesting to the contrary is an insult to those manufacturing workers now un- or underemployed.
I certainly can't blame someone after their second or third downsizing to seek employment in other sectors, nor a student thinking twice about investing his time and money studying for a dying trade.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 23, 2007 10:13:50 GMT -6
The only job "growth" taking place is in service-sector jobs. The decline in manufacturing started slowly under Reagan, picked up speed under Bush I, recovered some under Clinton, and then fell off a cliff under the current administration. I am SURE you noticed that it started the recent decline in 1997. "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=2432
|
|