Reply With Quote
How many people are in China?
How many people are in the USA?
Is it cheaper to make stuff in China?
Turning Chinese
So Much for the New Bush Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: [email protected]The February payroll jobs figures released last Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show a continuation of America's descent into a third world service economy.
The Bush administration cheered the creation of 229,000 private sector jobs (which still leaves Bush with a net private sector job loss during his reign). However, once we look at the details, the joy vanishes: 174,000 of the jobs, or 76% of the total, are in nontradable services.
Administrative and waste services (largely temporary help and employment services) account for 61,000 or 35% of the new service jobs. The remainder are accounted for by construction (30,000), retail trade (30,000), healthcare and social assistance (27,000), and waitresses and bar tenders (27,000).
The US has apparently lost the ability to create high productivity, high value-added jobs in tradable goods and services. The ladders of upward mobility are being dismantled by offshore production for home markets and outsourcing of knowledge jobs.
The BLS reports that the number of employed US technical workers has fallen by 221,000 in six major computer and engineering job classifications during 2000-2004. The largest drops were suffered by computer programmers, followed by electrical and electronics engineers, computer scientists and systems analysts.
So much for the new economy that economists promised would take the place of the lost manufacturing economy.
America's remaining job market is domestic nontradable services. While India and China develop first world job markets, the US labor market takes on the characteristics of a third world work force. Only jobs that cannot be outsourced are growing.
The Bush economy has seen a loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, a rise in the unemployment rate of 1.2 percentage points, and a stagnation in real weekly earnings.
How bad will things have to get before economists realize that outsourced jobs are not being replaced? Indeed, many American companies are ceasing to have any presence in the US except for a sales force.
Cisco's CEO, John Chambers, declared recently: "What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company."
Cisco is establishing a new R&D center in Shanghai. The US corporation manufactures $5 billion of products in China where it employes 10,000 people.
That is just one company, and there are many doing the same thing. The result is abandonment of the American work force by American corporations. Little wonder the Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years to have a net loss of private sector jobs.
If one US company or a few move offshore, their profits improve and consumer prices are lower. However, when work in general moves offshore, American lose the incomes associated with the production of the goods they consume. Domestic production is turned into imports, with the result that America draws down its ac ulated wealth in order to pay for the imports on which it is dependent.
The dollar's value and status as reserve currency cannot forever stand the trade and budget deficits that are now part and parcel of America's economic policy.
Unless there are major changes soon, America's economic future is a third world work force with a banana democracy's worthless currency.
Counter Punch.org
numbers without the spin
Comstock FundEmployment Numbers Without the Spin
March 10, 2005
Last Friday the report that February payroll employment increased by a monthly 262,000 was greeted with great enthusiasm by the stock market and most economists. This was the 39th month since the official recession bottom in November 2001. The following is an attempt to put this number into perspective without the spin.
In the previous five expansionary economic cycles the average increase in employment over the first 39 months was 10.1%. In the current cycle the increase is 1.5%.
If employment had climbed by 10.1 % since November 2001, we would have added 13.2 million jobs instead of the 1.9 million actually reported. That’s a difference of 11.3 million jobs.
If we did add 13.2 million jobs on the current cycle, the average monthly increase would have amounted to 338,000. Instead the monthly average increase has been only 50,000, and we have exceeded 300,000 in only three separate months out of the 39.
Snip ......
W missing 11.3 million jobs..
How many people are in China?
How many people are in the USA?
Is it cheaper to make stuff in China?
Let's see 34 cents per hour Chinese workers make versus $5.25 per hour plus SS/Medicare...yada..yada..Is it cheaper to make stuff in China?
Yep. I would say its cheaper to make things in China, but is outsourcing professional jobs good for America?
Uh, so companies should do things the more expensive way?
You speak of China as some brand new threat that just sprung into existance the day Barbara's little boy was sworn in in 2002. They've been there all along. Why are the jobs migrating NOW?
other countries are just now(the past 10 years) professionalizing their workforce and and making higher end products.. even mexico is now producing high quality goods that for a long were only produced in the united states and europe.
Uh, because China is becoming more and more envolved with high tech industries. China is becoming very interested in capitalism while maintaining communist control. It helps them while hurting the US and the West. Oh, that and labor has not just started migrating, but has been accelerated by the growth of the electronics industry and the interenet. They have tons more man power at a lower cost. Companies in the West are trying to cut costs and raise revenue, and this has been the only way to stay compe ive.
more u.s. businesses would go under if they had to pay u.s. wages..
Newsflash: they're not US businesses. They are multi-national corporations that could give a flying about the US economy. I laugh when I see those Earthlink ads with the two white guys arguing their contributions to the company and the customers. They should be very dark skinned, have fine features and names like Raj and Suresh.
So then why does it surprise you that people with no loyalties to the US are moving jobs abroad?
no ...then why are you complaing about migrating jobs from multi-national corps?
Did I say I was surprised? It already happened in the manufacturing sector in the 70s.So then why does it surprise you that people with no loyalties to the US are moving jobs abroad?
Because I do care about the US and the US economy.no ...then why are you complaing about migrating jobs from multi-national corps?
OK Ex, that's great. But as implied by this thread's le, why is that Bush's fault?
It's happening on his watch.
haha.. whatever... like jobs going overseas in a brand new thing... it was happening way before bush.. it is called GLOBALIZATION.. and it will only get bigger...
So what should he do to stop it? What can be done?
Oh, when I leave work, this thread is mine.
1. Stop worrying about people's personal lives and concentrate on issues that really affect people, like THIS one.So what should he do to stop it? What can be done?
2. Stop taking money from them. It makes him beholden to them, and unlikely to do anything that may be to their detriment.
Here's my view on the subject:
Barring a sudden and rapid increase in the level of education in the workforce in this country, the United States is ed.
Why?
Because through globalization, cheaper work is available elsewhere.
But, what can look like a benefit to US companies will also hurt them in the long run. You can't take from part of a cycle at one point and not expect it to come around and bite you in the ass at another.
As more jobs are exported, the value of the american worker drops. Unemployment goes up, and those who are employed typicaly don't see a rate of growth in pay as high as they would when the job market was working in the favor or workers.
In turn, American people then have less money to buy goods or spend on services. This in turn returns to the cycle by companies seeking to maximize profits by once again cutting costs, and by exporting jobs to be done at a lower rate of pay. Not to mention that workers overseas typicaly don't have unions and aren't en led to benefits in most cases. Also, companies can skirt enviromental issues in factories abroad much more than they can do so here in America.
All of that translates into savings for companies, but when Americans once again have less money to spend, the cycle repeats itself. It equalizes when exporting jobs is no longer seen as a cost saving alternative.
One of the huge causes of job exportation is of course so called "free trade", which both Clinton (NAFTA anyone?) and Bush have promoted quite heavily. Why? Because lobbyists for big business want it in place, thats why. It's not a partisian issue, it's a money issue.
Anyhow, these free trade agreements suck because it allows American companies to set up shop in places like Mexico and skirt labor laws and enviromental laws that are in place in the United States. We don't allow the selling of products made here under those conditions, why on earth should we allow them coming form another country when it costs us American jobs?
Also, when it was simply manufacturing jobs going overseas such as those in the auto and textile industries, people said it wasn't that big of a deal because we were going to have all of the high tech jobs. Think again people, countriesIndia is going to blow us way the out of the water because they are producing people with a much higher education faster and cheaper. They are also willing to work for less.
Globalization and Free Trade can be great things, but only when they are implimented in truly fair ways. Not just in ways that will benefit the few people who already control the majority of the wealth in the world.
If the United States refuses to accept globalization we are ed anyway. There is no way we could ignore globalization and compete in the world market.
Also, many of the working conditions in other countries aren't bad in their country. That is how it is done there. If the jobs were so bad they would not have millions lining up to take them. When your choice is to scrounge for food like a dog or work hard to eat, most choose to work.
I didn't say ignore it, I said implement it in a much more controlled way. No Free Trade agreements without being on an equal playing field
Yes, what what you are missing in this equation is that we don't allow goods to be produced in that manner in this country. Yet, we are allowing direct compe ion of goods that ARE produced in those manners coming from other countries. Those laws are there for reasons, and if we allow the selling of goods which are not made under the same conditions we want for our workers, we effectivly cut our own legs out from underneath us. And for who? Corporations?Also, many of the working conditions in other countries aren't bad in their country. That is how it is done there. If the jobs were so bad they would not have millions lining up to take them. When your choice is to scrounge for food like a dog or work hard to eat, most choose to work.
Also, we should be taking steps to combat the negative effects of globalization on the United States by making our workers more valuable. How? By making them a much more productive workforce through education. Instead of letting tuition skyrocket and not keeping pace with federal financial aid, we should be doing the opposite in order to ensure that America's workforce is still the best and most educated in the world.
NAFTA was also supposed to revitalize the Mexican economy, and has done nothing of the sort. Why? Because the corporations that take full advantage of the situation aren't Mexican in origion, but American. American corporations have such a large advantage in capital and resources that they are quick to take advantage of newly opened markets, which doesn't allow indigenous business to grow very fast. This also has a negative effect on American workers because as long as they rate of pay stays down for workers in other countries, it remains a cheaper alternative for corporations from here to export their jobs.
There are many ways we can protect our workforce without imposing tarrifs and other protectionist measures. I maintain, that free trade shouldn't be implimented in such a laisser faire manner.
manny, if the us refuses to implement free trade it will only hurt us... the european union would love it if the u.s. refused to have free trade agreements... they would begin to kill us in all markets if we began a system of economic isolation...
How is the EU going to kill us going into markets?
that is what the european union is.. a huge conglomeration of free trade... 25 members strong... if we begin imposing huge tariffs it would only hurt us... they would benefit from more trade...
3. Stop the merger/acquisition madness. We are to the point (and yes, much of this happened during bush43's tenure) where Standard Oil and ATT are almost back to their starting points as monopolies. Fewer corporations mean less compe ion, both on pricing of widgets in the marketplace, and on buying from the labor pool.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
