PDA

View Full Version : Jobs Outlook - A Challenging Future



John of Phoenix
09-05-2003, 01:45 PM
The vast majority of the 2.7 million job losses since the 2001 recession began were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back, which means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in novel and dynamic economic sectors, a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study has concluded.

The rest of the story here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27825-2003Sep4.html

A bit lengthy but some interesting observations, especially near the end of the article.

Wayne Jeffers
09-05-2003, 01:53 PM
An update: It was announced today that the US economy lost another 93,000 jobs in August. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30663-2003Sep5.html

Wayne

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 02:13 PM
Meanwhile, Congress votes themselves and the government a pay raise. (http://media5.hypernet.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=010989)

High C
09-05-2003, 02:14 PM
Another update: The "2001 recession" was in the year 2000.

John of Phoenix
09-05-2003, 02:14 PM
That 93,000 drop was a REAL surprise too. The gurus were looking for a gain of 12,000 jobs and get slammed with that drop. Troubling.

Jim H
09-05-2003, 02:17 PM
In 2002 and 2003, the economy has grown each quarter at annualized rates between 1.3 and 5 percent, but the number of payroll jobs has fallen an average of 0.4 percent every three months. Moreover, nationally, the number of hours worked per employee has remained steady, the Fed study said, pointing to "the emergence of a new kind of recovery, one driven by productivity increases rather than payroll gains."A real eye opener.

brad9798
09-05-2003, 02:20 PM
Let's stop inventing, mechanizing, automating, etc. ... Let's all commit to paying more for everyday products. That is a really simple way to bring back the laborer.

On one hand, we continually want bigger, faster, cheaper ... on the other, we complain about loss of jobs ... the two go, and always have gone, hand-in-hand.

Not to say that there is not some profiteering and/or greed, but the bottom line is:

Technology ELIMINATES more jobs than it creates ... after the implementation phase!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is often troubling ... but our thirst for advancement has sometimes negative byproducts.

Brad

Chris Coose
09-05-2003, 02:23 PM
"Them thats got, shall get,
Them thats not, shall loose..."

"empty pockets don't ever make the grade"

Hang on, protect those you love and watch out for your neighbor. There's a hard time comin.

I really have no idea where these guys get the sunshine to blow up everybody's arses.

Jim H
09-05-2003, 02:28 PM
OK, maybe it's a dumb question but how do you reverse the job loss? How do you stop jobs from being out-sourced? Why would you not want a corporation to be run efficiently? Serious questions.

Chris Coose
09-05-2003, 02:34 PM
Fire the Bush's and disgrace trickle-down economics for exactly what it is.

Jim H
09-05-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Chris Coose:
Fire the Bush's and disgrace trickle-down economics for exactly what it is.How does that create Jobs?

John of Phoenix
09-05-2003, 03:05 PM
Jim, EXCELLENT questions without easy answers. One simple answer is, "You can't reverse the job losses." As the article states, "...both the McKinsey study and Groshen suggest that Washington's job preservation and recovery efforts may be fruitless."

Companies, private or public, want to operate as efficiently as possible to maximize profits. Consumers want quality goods and services delivered as cheaply as possible. Therefore we're moving in the right direction to satisfy those goals. Now as long as those remain the overriding concerns, the question really becomes, "How do you re-employ the displaced worker?" Relocate? Retrain? You may eventually face the same problems all over again in another location or trade. What new industry can we invent? How can we (or do we want to) protect that industry from what's happening now? Repeal NAFTA? Impose tarrifs? Impose minimum wages and environmental standards on our trading partners to bring their costs in line with ours?

If there was an easy answer, there wouldn't be a problem. :confused:

R.I.Singer30
09-05-2003, 03:08 PM
Well for one that's been out looking....I can get a job, but only for $10.00/hr and that sucks.The one I left was$17.10 and I thought I would get something in that range.My UE benefits run out next week and it looks like I'll be taking something paying nothing and working 80 hrs. per week so I don't think you'll be hearing as much from me ,although this is one of my favorite pastimes.I'll probably be a little P.O.'d though.

On Vacation
09-05-2003, 03:12 PM
Man, I come back after a week, and read this crap. Lets look at the job loss and the types of jobs lost to overseas and to more efficent ways of producing stuff. Take jobs like Potato pickers, tomato pickers, tobacco pickers, telephone receptionists, and truck drivers hauling these goods. Would you guys care to share with us how you can even fill these jobs with American labor? We can't even get folks to sand a wooden hull because of the hard work involved in it.

Machines had to be created to make up for the labor force lost to the jobs that couldn't be filled with any human being. This did bring about the Mexican labor to even fill the needs of the initial start up in the fields of our produce growers. The Microsoft lawsuit created huge amounts of losses in the high tech industry, bsed in California and Wash. state.

It's hard to get startup businesses,in the same industry, to even think about investing in this country after that scam from the late 90's. Look at the California numbers of jobs losses. What casued that? Well you do have your head in the sand if you think this was Bush's fault. You guys are one group of whiners. Start your own business, as many did in the past, when they were laid off. Many upstart businesses in the past, were spin offs doing the same jobs, from people tired of working for other people, period, anyway. Do the same and charge cheaper rates than the big corporations, or large firms you were with to start with. The overhead is surely less. Yuo darn tooting, I found out that a bucket of clamps did 100 times the amount of work than five whiners did, and showed up to work 24/7 and never required paid time off, and insurance benefits. These guys wifes never were pregnant and never had to take their smaller clamps to the soccer game, or to get braces on their threads. Geewizzz. Gripe, complain, whine. Later.

John of Phoenix
09-05-2003, 03:18 PM
Donn's chart says that unemployment goes down when the recession ends. Good chart too.

The Fed report says, "This time it's different. Those jobs have moved overseas for good."

Time will tell.

[ 09-05-2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

Wayne Jeffers
09-05-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Jim Hillman:
OK, maybe it's a dumb question but how do you reverse the job loss? How do you stop jobs from being out-sourced? Why would you not want a corporation to be run efficiently? Serious questions.Serious questions indeed, Jim.

Let me begin by stating that no one should want corporations to be run inefficiently. Greater efficiency means greater output per person and that should translate into higher pay per person and greater ability to consume, that is obtain goods and services in exchange for our labor, greater prosperity. There are, however, serious issues as to how the increased profits from gains in productivity should be shared.

But the point of wise government economic policy should not be mainly to protect existing jobs but rather to stimulate creation of new (replacement) jobs. Stimulating the creation of new jobs is one area where the current administration has been singularly unsuccessful.

The current administration has pursued a policy of tax cuts aimed especially at the most wealthy of us in hopes that the money will go looking for good investments. And that stimulating investment will result in increasing efficiency. This is so-called supply-side economics. It fails to live up to its advertised claims for a number of reasons.

Far better as a stimulus to job creation would be tax cuts for the least wealthy among us, who would spend the money on consumption in short order, thereby creating a market for more of the goods and services of industry, and a need for greater output of both existing products and new products. This demand-side policy produces much more economic stimulus than supply-side policies.

The administration is also following policies that will result in huge deficits as far as the eye can see. This will eventually result in much higher interest rates, which will depress economic activity. The biggest reason we haven't seen this effect so far is the fact that the Chinese have their currency pegged to ours at an artificially low rate, so they have a huge trade surplus with us, and they invest a high proportion of this surplus in US Treasury securities, which helps keep the rates for Treasury securities at auction low, and prevents the government from siphoning so much credit away from the markets. This cannot go on for ever, and when the bubble bursts, interest rates will skyrocket and economic activity will plummet.

Though they would not admit it, much of the economic stimulus from this administration's policies has come from good old-fashioned Keynesian deficit spending. But much of this deficit spending has gone to producing military hardware for our foreign adventures. However much you may approve of those adventures, this kind of spending produces much less economic benefit long-term as opposed to government spending on infrastructure and education, which increases our productive capacity long-term.

Wayne

Scott Rosen
09-05-2003, 03:37 PM
It's impossible to defy the ebb and flow of the world markets for money and goods. If you look at what's been keeping our economy afloat for the last few years, you can see that we're in for some bad times. It's an economic fact: an inflationary monetary system will create bubbles and will have boom and bust cycles as the money expands, fuels production in excess of consumption and then contracts.

The Fed prints money as fast as the presses can run, which creates price inflation in specific sectors: stocks, real estate, bonds. The Fed lowers rates so that credit can be extended and cash thereby pumped into the system. Meanwhile, private and public debt is at unsustainable levels, so even if the Fed creates more money, it can't get the money into the hands of people who can spend it. It's like pushing on a string. To service the debt, individuals, businesses and governments need to keep borrowing more money at increasingly lower rates, while hoping that the Fed can inflate their debts out of existence. They can't solve the problem by producing and selling more, because they already have too much production capacity. When rates bottom out or turn up, businesses look to lower expenses by moving labor costs overseas. That takes jobs out of the US and means there is less money to spend to keep the machine running. Much of the boom of the Clinton years was driven by credit, debt and asset bubbles. Not by good old-fashioned work. [edited to add:] And the Bush administration is making the problem worse by inflating at rates previously unheard of and creating ever larger federal deficits.

That doesn't even begin to touch upon the problems of federal deficits and the world's loss of confidence in dollar-denominated securities.

We have a lot of excess in the system that has to be worked out. There's no escaping it. The longer the government and Fed try to stop, the worse it will be.

I say accept that you can't change the flow of the tides. Try to soften your landing and begin to plan for how you will profit once things bottom out.

[ 09-05-2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Scott Rosen ]

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 03:39 PM
One good immediate solution is to terminate all "H" visas until the economy recovers. Then, deal with outshoring. The government could probably eliminate a lot of ourshoring overnight by prohibiting itself (oh, like the corps would ever allow this!) from doing any business with suppliers employing outshored workers.

[ 09-05-2003, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Alan D. Hyde
09-05-2003, 03:45 PM
Nice chart, Donn.

Some general comments:

Because of mechanization, we can make more stuff, better (if we wish to) with less people. This usually means cheaper, and the public generally likes this. Repetitive-task workers in manufacturing may have been well-paid in some industries, but some were quite unhappy with their tedious jobs (read Rivethead).

U.S. tax and employment policy has been anti-employment for many years. All other things being equal, the more you tax and regulate something, the less of it you get. This policy has been promulgated under two generations of a Democratically-controlled Congress. The Republicans are not blameless, however. They have been stupid enough to continue it.

Since manufactured stuff can be bought more cheaply, more money is left over to spend on service-related items. More Americans, for example, eat more meals out than ever before in our history. A good waitress at Steak 'n Shake can make $12-16 hour (x 2,000 hours in a work year) or $24,000 to $32,000 annually--- not big bucks, but not grinding poverty, either.

Generally, service industry jobs tend to pay less than do manufacturing jobs.

Many of the problems complained of so far in this thread are complex, but not unrelated to how much bureaucracy and inefficiency is now built into our economic and political regulatory system.

Here's a broad look at that:

(From Booklist)

A generation of social activists has seen in economic liberty merely a license for greed and aggression. Legal scholar Epstein sees much more: he finds a proven safeguard against state tyranny and an engine of social prosperity. But to defend laissez-faire against its critics, he must demonstrate that individual liberty in the use of private property can foster the common good, while still permitting government action--in regulating monopolies, for instance--when private initiative will not suffice. It is indeed the nuanced concessions that make the overall defense of free enterprise compelling, just as they give strength to the critiques of misapplied state coercion. In sketching out the proper limits for state power, Epstein opens exceptional insights into why society depends on cultural norms and family loyalties that neither courts nor legislatures can replace. The rigorous reasoning buttressed by exhaustive scholarship ensures sustained demand for this book among serious students of legal philosophy. Bryce Christensen

The above is from a review of:

Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty With the Common Good
by Richard A. Epstein

Epstein has an excellent exposition of the benefits of classical liberalism on the Editorial Page of today's Wall Street Journal.

***

Alan

oldriverat
09-05-2003, 03:46 PM
"I'm proud to be one of the have mores."
GWB

Wayne Jeffers
09-05-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
. . . Increased profits creates an atmosphere that encourages investment in the expansion of the economy, and along come the jobs.I would suggest that increased opportunity for profits creates this atmosphere that encourages investment.

The increased opportunity for profit is highly dependent upon consumers with money to spend or the ability to borrow that money at good interest rates. If demand slacks off sufficiently, producers are stuck with warehouses full of goods they canít move, no matter how efficient they may be at producing.

Wayne

Jim H
09-05-2003, 03:48 PM
John, you're right there's no easy answer. While it might be easy for a 25 or 30 yr old to re-train for another industry, those in their 40's & 50's would have a hard time finding a job period. Let's face it, there is plenty of age discrimination out there, not to mention that moving to a new industry means you start in an enrty level position at less pay then you generally feel you're worth. Worse yet, our manufacturing base is spreading accross the globe so some industries may never come back. I don't think that tearing-up NAFTA or raising tariffs are the answer though, our economy is too intertwined with other countries to start a tariff war. Working on trade imbalances would be a nice start.

OTOH for the last 20 years I've been in the "real" world, I've always held the opinion that there would come a time when the major "players" in the U.S. business world would become vulnerable to smaller business'. I think that we (small business owners) might have an opportunity to expand in the marketplace. As multi-naitonal corporations change their standards to stay competitive in super-regulated overseas markets, local business may have the opportunity steal some marketshare from them. It might be possible to re-build some of our lost manufacturing base. Of course, we'll have to change the roll of our high schools from diploma mills to the production of technically proficient workers. There are just not enough McDonalds for all of the burger flippers we're turning out.

Scott Rosen
09-05-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
The increased opportunity for profit is highly dependent upon consumers with money to spend or the ability to borrow that money at good interest rates. If demand slacks off sufficiently, producers are stuck with warehouses full of goods they canít move, no matter how efficient they may be at producing.That's exactly where we are today. Excess production fueled not by demand for goods and services but by too much cheap credit and massive infusions of cash/liquidity. There is no pain-free way to work off the excess.

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
Here, for perspective, is a chart of US unemployment for the last 33 years. The pink columns are recessions. Any technical analysts out there?
http://www.economagic.com/gif/g24018608801414543736437815327763.gif
Is there more information on how to interpret this chart? For example:
* What technically determines the beginning and end of a recession? I wonder if something fundamental has changed or if the gov't has changed how they do the statistics, as they sometimes do. If it is fundamental, the lag in (re)employment suggests the system has changed to have more inertia (and it would be interesting to know what the lag influences are!).
* What are the per capita number of unemployed of the employment population? I think the employment population is down compared to 1982 due to more baby boomers retiring - is that reflected in this chart?
* I'd be really interested to see what the age distribution is in the unemployment figures.

Wayne Jeffers
09-05-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Scott Rosen:
. . . too much cheap credit . . . Scott,

There are few who would argue that cheap credit is a bad thing.

Wayne

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 03:56 PM
About Small and Medium Enterprises (SME's): i've been wondering what the bankruptcy and new start numbers are in that area for the past several years? That would be another indicator of the health of the economy.

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott Rosen:
. . . too much cheap credit . . . Scott,

There are few who would argue that cheap credit is a bad thing.

Wayne</font>[/QUOTE]Nor cheap whiskey - until you have to sober up.

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 04:11 PM
I don't hold the current adminstration accountable for the current recession, but I do hold them responsible for responding effectively to it! How is the administration working to influence the creation of new jobs in the US or help keep jobs from going overseas? So far the remedies have been, in part, palliative (thanks for that at least, so far!) and not generally effective for most people, who got only limited benefit from the tax cut. Any benefit the corporations got out of it likely went to expanding offshore operations and thus yield no benefit to the economy nor revenue to the treasury.

Alan D. Hyde
09-05-2003, 04:20 PM
Drive along Route 1A sometime, North from Boston all the way thru Maine. Notice all the big, beautiful, 18th and 19th Century houses.

These were built with the profits from FOREIGN TRADE, transported in American ships.

Now read John McPhee's excellent Looking for a Ship to find out how wrong-headed and heavy-handed U.S. regulation have destroyed our shipping industry. I don't doubt that ACB can supply some specifics. This is only an example, but it is emblematic of what over-regulation and over-taxation will do to ANY productive venture.

Alan

Wayne Jeffers
09-05-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
Wayne...that's accurate in the case of speculative investment, but not in investment in manufacturing infrastructue. . . .Donn,

Investment in manufacturing infrastructure is speculative, too. All investment is speculative, some more than others.

My point was that this investment is encouraged less by past profit, but rather more by the prospect of future profit.

This administration's policies did not start this recession but they have been woefully inadequate, and often counter-productive, in ending it.

How much longer will you blame all our future economic problems on Clinton? (Who BTW produced our longest peacetime economic expansion and produced budget surpluses.)

Wayne

Jim H
09-05-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
Serious questions indeed, Jim.

There are, however, serious issues as to how the increased profits from gains in productivity should be shared.

Wayne, you're right. I think things like the Alternative Minimum Tax make corporations look for ways to move $$ off-shore, when that money could be put to work here.

But the point of wise government economic policy should not be mainly to protect existing jobs but rather to stimulate creation of new (replacement) jobs. Stimulating the creation of new jobs is one area where the current administration has been singularly unsuccessful.


IMOOP, the only "real" way that the government can create jobs is direct hiring, the growth of govenment. I agree with Scott that the economy ebbs and flows and that joblessness will follow suit.

But much of this deficit spending has gone to producing military hardware for our foreign adventures. However much you may approve of those adventures, this kind of spending produces much less economic benefit long-term as opposed to government spending on infrastructure and education, which increases our productive capacity long-term.
WayneSetting aside the Iraqi War, all other deficit spending, especially on military hardware, would have been done by any other sitting President. Centralizing our domestic security into Homeland Security (could'nt they come up with a better name?) and modernizing/standardizing their equipment had to be done. No sitting President would have been able to avoid going after ubl in Afghanistan. Now I am not hijacking the thread, I don't want this to expand into something it's not, I just wanted to say that in the situation we found ourselves on 9/12/01 any President would have acted and so the money would have been spent anyway.

We could argue about education all day long, outside of providing computers and equipment for "shop" classes I don't think we need to throw more money at education. We need to spend it more wisely.

Alan D. Hyde
09-05-2003, 04:26 PM
Wayne, please remember that the economic boom you describe was produced by the efforts OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE at work.

Clinton was Aesop's fly on the axle-tree of the speeding chariot, saying: "See what a dust I raise!"

The problems are not in the country, and the answers in Washington; the problems are in Washington, and the answers are in the country.

Alan

Jim H
09-05-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
About Small and Medium Enterprises (SME's): i've been wondering what the bankruptcy and new start numbers are in that area for the past several years? That would be another indicator of the health of the economy.I don't think that bankruptcy of "SME's" would be an accurate reflection of the health of the economy. The great majority of business' that fail are due to poor management and poor planning.

High C
09-05-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
This administration's policies did not start this recession but they have been woefully inadequate, and often counter-productive, in ending it.

How much longer will you blame all our future economic problems on Clinton? (Who BTW produced our longest peacetime economic expansion and produced budget surpluses.)

WayneHave another look at the recession chart. The most recent recession was of short to average duration. How does that justify your "woefully inadequate" charge?

Clinton produced our longest peacetime expansion and produced budget surpluses? Puhlease! He said, many times, that a balanced budget was not a priority. He resisted it mightily. Had not Republicans won majority control of Congress in '94, there would have been no surpluses. That is most certainly NOT to Clinton's credit.

As for the expansion of the 90s, he was just the lucky guy who happened to be there when it happened. That growth occurred because of lowered tax rates, thank you Ronald Reagan, and a renewed confidence that took place when control of Congress was finally wrestled away from corrupt Democrats.

If only today's Congressional Republicans were as effective as that bunch in '94.

High C
09-05-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
The "expansion of the 90's" started in the early 80's, and if any single name can arguably be tied to it, it's probably a name like Bill Gates, and not any politician or Congress.Gates and the computer revolution were indeed a major factor. And in general, I'm inclined to agree that Washington has little power to help, and somewhat more power to harm the economy. But Reagan was a rare exception. He did a lot to make this country feel good about itself again, after a decade and a half of tough times. He inspired confidence, and the economy boomed for nearly 2 decades.

Keith Wilson
09-05-2003, 04:57 PM
The problems are not in the country, and the answers in Washington; the problems are in Washington, and the answers are in the country.
Yes, that's the conservative catechism. Despite being absurdly reductionist, it's partly true. Some of the problems are in Washington, some of them are elsewhere. Some of the answers are in the country, some of them are in Washington, some of them haven't been though of yet.

It is true that any administration, left or right, has only a relatively small effect on the manic-depressive cycle of a capitalist economy.

Alan D. Hyde
09-05-2003, 05:04 PM
Keith, the point of every rhetorical knife rests upon a broader and deeper blade and hilt.

Alan

Gary E
09-05-2003, 05:10 PM
If you fellows look at your job and think that you do a good job for a reasonable paycheck, and you probably do, you then think that you are somewhat safe cuz your job falls into YOUR special catagory, think again. YOUR job, can and will be relocated as soon as a way is found to pay someone else 1 bowl of rice for the intire hours work. There are more english speaking jobs now being done in India, the Philipiens, Ireland and a lot of other countries, THEY ARE COMMING FOR YOUR JOB NEXT.

American corps used to be, Market it, sell it, build it, ship it and KEEP THE $$ collected here in the US by paying AMERICANS to do these jobs. Now we have the same corps marketing and selling imported stuff and sending the $$ overseas, they dont need the US labor any more. BTW, my bro inlaw is a CPA, nice safe job right? he thinks so anyway.. not if you work for Ernst & Young, all the acct work at that outfit is done in India and they pay as I understand about $25/day for an accountant. Do you think that's a job you want? Fortunatly for bro inlaw he is at retirement age, but what about your son who is about to enter the workforce as a CPA???

I am sure most of you have heard of OPEC.. thats the oil biz, but have you ever heard of OPIC ?? Overseas Private Investment Corp?

http://www.opic.gov/

Take a look, it is a LONG read to fully understand how and why we in the US are SCREWED.

G

Jim,
How are the folks doing that worked at that company that named your town... Sugarland

High C
09-05-2003, 05:26 PM
A comforting thought for those who fear an American future where all our jobs are moved overseas:

Business requires two elements to succeed. A desirable product, and customers. If they way the product is made results in a jobless America, there will be no customers. Jobless people do very little consuming. To a considerable extent, this is a self correcting kind of thing.

We would also do well to encourage our government to make the legal environment more conducive to business. Threat of litigation, complex and expensive taxation, onerous, and often senseless regulation, all contribute to push some companies away. This is no longer the easiest place in the world to do business, by a long shot.

[ 09-05-2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

Jim H
09-05-2003, 05:32 PM
Jim,
How are the folks doing that worked at that company that named your town... SugarlandYou're right, they're gone. Management probably won't be too far behind either - I'd guess in a year they'll be gone too. They consolidated the operation to Mississippi, I think. Agribusiness is a whole other topic.

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
The "current recession" ended last November.

I explained how increased productivity leads to job creation. I don't think any administration can have much of an effect on productivity. The corporations that you hate so much will have and are having much more to do with it. New jobs, to replace jobs lost, will be created by corporations in new industries or industry niches.I do not agree that the recession ended last November. It may have ended based on some narrow interpretation of stats, but with this many people out of work and the shrinking job market, how can we not be in recession? I honestly don't think we have a healthy economy with this much unemployment (and deficit spending!). (Seriously, I want to know: i'm not trying to start any argument here.)

You say that productivity leads to more jobs, but the current stats are saying just the opposite: productivity is up, employment is down. Do you have any idea as to why that's so and when it's going to change?

Meerkat
09-05-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by High C:
A comforting thought for those who fear an American future where all our jobs are moved overseas:

Business requires two elements to succeed. A desirable product, and customers. If they way the product is made results in a jobless America, there will be no customers. Jobless people do very little consuming. To a considerable extent, this is a self correcting kind of thing.

We would also do well to encourage our government to make the legal environment more conducive to business. Threat of litigation, complex and expensive taxation, onerous, and often senseless regulation, all contribute to push some companies away. This is no longer the easiest place in the world to do business, by a long shot.I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I read this. If we made the legel environment any more conducive to business, they'd be getting all the tax revenues directly! :D

High C
09-05-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh when I read this. If we made the legel environment any more conducive to business, they'd be getting all the tax revenues directly! :D Glad to see you laugh, Meer. ;) But ask around and see how hard it is to be a business owner in this hyper regulated environment. I can't imagine why anyone would think we have a loose business environment in this country, very much the opposite.

Recession is a strictly defined thing, based solely on GDP. I don't recall the formula, but it's something to the effect that 3 consecutive quarters of declining GDP makes a recession. That's a wild stab at it. Somebody can jump in with the correct formula (guess who?). But it is a measure of the trend and direction of gross domestic product.

Hughman
09-05-2003, 08:10 PM
You guys are the three blind men and the elephant. :rolleyes:

Stiletto
09-05-2003, 09:24 PM
This discussion applies to just about all economies in developed countries. Is there a western economy that isnt suffering the same problems to some extent?
Greenfields investment seem to provide jobs that werent there before in the way that Donn says, but perhaps the vision required to come up with a new set of real solutions is realistically a bit much to ask of a leader (in any country) who owes political favours to those that helped put him there.
The increasing wealth of the offshore countries may eventually see them as potential customers for us.
All economies are changing all the time , remember the British Empire?. The hard thing to do is predict what course of action to take, burger flippers beware!
As a self employed person I have learned to accept the uncertainties and freedoms that go with that , and feel that small businesses can offer employment solutions that corporates cant. When I want to buy a new car though, I am aware that only corporates or other large businesses can provide that.
It seems that once corporates went global that the work forces started to suffer.
A return to isolationism doesnt seem like a solution though.
A dilemma indeed.

Alan D. Hyde
09-08-2003, 10:47 AM
Britain is indeed worth looking at.

Her economic growth has been stultified, historically, by excessive taxes and regulation.

Our own fate will be similar, if we fail to learn from the mistakes of others.

Alan

On Vacation
09-08-2003, 10:55 AM
I have learned to accept the uncertainties and freedoms that go with that , and feel that small businesses can offer employment solutions that corporates cant.

Exactly, just I stated, and was snuffed off. We all can find a nitch, with no glits, to survive on through lifes' trials and tribulation. It can be done by anyone that is willing to work with their hands, in today's world. When you have a job, you can usually find a job, even by accident, if you truely want to work.