RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Structural Unemployment

Posted by: Boldwin
- [52551315] Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 16:06

The jobs many of us are trained for are not coming back. Adapt or die.
"...the bottom line is that companies have adapted to the changing structure of the U.S. and global economies a lot faster than the American workforce has, and a great number of those workers have a lot of catching up to do."
The standard government toolkit to spur employment isn't working. I mean that in a non-partisan way in this particular case.
Skill mismatches and other structural impediments to reducing unemployment are by nature long-term problems that cannot be cured simply by stimulative policies that boost demand.

Low interest rates cannot retrain or educate workers. Rather they tend to make capital even cheaper relative to labor.
Businesses have fixed their profitability problem but beefing up the workforce wasn't their solution. [You can get angry at that but that turned out to be their best pragmatic solution given the capital and global marketplace they find themselves in]

So what training do we need to seek out in this new environment? We need to fix our own boat and stop counting on someone else bailing us out. Most of us will need to reach outside our comfort zone. Let's at least try and map out the best personal routes out of this swamp.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
27boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 16:10
So we may, at some point, have structural unemployment as opposed to broad-based endemic unemployment, if we change directions and start again investing in our citizens.

so how do you invest in them? Suggestions? There is a lot of talk about how they should be retrained into information and technologies but I think what a lot of people forget is that the beauty of technology is that it takes less and less people to support more and more people. This is not say that they should not be retrained but retraining millions of people for an industry that requires much less is not going to solve any problems.

I think I just read somewhere that Obama plans on increase the number of engineers that America produces each year, but how. Are they going to lower standards? The reason we don't produce more engineers is that after half the students take there first "weed out" class they decide it time to become a business major, not because there is not a supply of students interested in becoming engineers.
28biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 16:27
Not allowing them to sit at home as there skills and confidence erode, would be a good start. As I've said, we have vast amounts of work to do in our country to remain completive. Let's get busy fixing and modernizing our country, training the unemployed new skills in the process, and killing two birds with one stone.
29boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 16:32
I am not sure how many want to be retrained as a road worker...I guess what I am saying is that is not really answer billi, train them for what?
30biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 16:56
I was thinking about training for power grid work, among other things.

There is certainly going to be a large number of people who don't need retraining, they just need a job.
31biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 17:02
There is a long-term lack of investment in infrastructure we need to address. We spend somewhere around 2% of our GDP on infrastructure projects. Europe spends around 5%. China around 10%.

We need people long-term to do this work, or we won't have the tools to compete globally in anything.
32Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 17:23
In 2006, Court TV, where I'd been for 8 years, was bought out by Turner Broadcasting. I worked in the operations department, but with some production-related responsibilities.

When they began dismantling departments I took a second job freelancing on Saturdays in another newsroom, hoping to get my foot in the door and also to beef up my resume. There I was also on the operations side, more exclusively so, at the satellite desk. After the hammer fell at CTV in 2009, I wormed my way into every training opportunity I could at the freelance place. Since then I pick up shifts there at the satellite desk, as a video editor and as an associate producer, and I might be asked to cover an assignment editor shift in a pinch as well.

I now have a full time gig at a broadcast fiber hub where my production experience is of little use. I still pick up a few shifts per month at the freelance place at various positions. We'll see if any of that extra training and experience winds up helpful as I try to get back into a news production full time. But it definitely helped get my mortgage paid in the 5 months from when my CTV severence ran out to when I landed the fiber hub job.
33Boldwin
      ID: 345491315
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 17:31
Where does he find the time to drive me crazy?
34weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 18:11
Isnt the government screwing up enough things already?
Putting the government in charge of something people need to do for themselves is a oneway ticket to economic ruin.
How did we ever retrain all those workers that fueled the industrial revolution without government programs?
35Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 18:24
Isnt the government screwing up enough things already?

Economists are in fairly solid agreement that the stimulus program, to name one government program, have tamped down an already-high unemployment rate. To name one program.

Perhaps government should get out of the business of trying to provide safety nets is what you are saying. That didn't help us last time, but perhaps the economy has learned to toe the GOP line this time around...
36biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 18:57
I don't wish living during the industrial revolution on anybody.

I guess how progress becomes a dirty word.
37weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 19:50
Perhaps government should get out of the business of trying to provide safety nets is what you are saying.
You know that is not what I'm saying but thank you for the blatant misrepresentation.

As for the stimulus, whatever meager short term benefits we gained will be more than offset by the long term pain we will feel from the ever growing debt burden that will drag the economy down for years to come.
38Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 21:21
There is a long-term lack of investment in infrastructure we need to address.

A major source of financing for infrastructure is municipal bonds, and as I've shown several times, the conservative voices at Newsmax, Townhall and the radical right radio blogosphere are trying their best to crash the muni bond markets(all the financial markets, really) with a campaign of hysteria and fear because it would make Obama look bad. Then they'll insult you by telling you they're patriots and care about jobs.
39Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 22:09
Isn't unemployment among those without a college education up near 20%?

I think the unemployment rate is about 4 or 5% if you have a college degree. Compared to 9 or 10% overall. Don't know if it went up 20%, but its way lower than the overall rate.

The best thing for the economy is for government to get out of the way. Singapore and Hong Kong are good examples. But, we'll never convince you liberals of that, and you'll never convince us otherwise.

Isn't there a federal highway transportation fund that is supposed to pay for infrastructure. It's paid from gas taxes or something. But, its a separate fund that is supposed to pay for roads, bridges, maintenance, etc. What happened to that? Why is that not working?

40biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 22:38
It's not working because people are driving less and its just pennies instead of a percentage, as all other sales taxes are. It's too small and we have run thru it, and it is not being replenished quickly enough. Gas in Europe is taxed heavily, with a gallon running 8-10 bucks.

And roads are just one small piece of our infrastructure needs, and a declining one at that.
41Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 23:02
I drove on the autobahn twenty years ago. I didn't see hardly any semis (or pickups). I think they use trains for that. Those things tear up the roads and bridges. They should switch our nation's fleet to natural gas (Pickins plan) and tax it heavily. It would still be cheaper than gasoline. Use the tax proceeds for repairs and jobs and fillup stations. Another brilliant idea from the Building 7 franchise.
42biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 00:52
I'm completely confused by what you are saying regarding unemployment. I can only assume you read what I said wrong.

I am also confused as to why rigs running on natural gas would be easier on our roads than those running on petrol.

Why not just tax gasoline adequately for our funding needs, and let the market choose whether it makes sense to switch to another fuel source?
43weykool
      ID: 53535152
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 03:38
It's not working because people are driving less and its just pennies instead of a percentage, as all other sales taxes are. It's too small and we have run thru it, and it is not being replenished quickly enough.
Pennies?
18.4 cents federal and at least that or triple for the states.
People are driving less?
I will think about this everyday I'm stuck in gridlock traffic.
Is this something like "Nobody goes there anymore because its too crowded"?
B7 is absolutely correct, stop wasting the money they already get and fix the damn roads.
Gas Taxes
44Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 07:54
We would get the natural gas here as opposed to importing petrol. More jobs here, less overseas.

If people are driving less, there would be less wear and tear on the roads. That sounds like a push.
45Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 08:13
If you want to read some interesting articles about Infrastructure in the county, I would suggest the Infrastructurist blog.

As was mentioned above, gas taxes are a specific amount per gallon. Governments have been hesitant to raise gas taxes in the face of higher gas prices. Despite that, the problem isn't the amount per gallon, the "problem" is that cars are more fuel efficient today.

46biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 09:51
Thanks for the link Frink. Yeah, efficiency is part of the issue, but people are also driving less, though it isn't clear whether this was purely due to the recession or whether some of the decreasing trend will continue going forward:



47boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:25
this link is kind of old but I have to assume that trends seen here have only continued. gas consumption by cars has continued to decrease.
48Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 12:13
Why not just tax gasoline adequately for our funding needs

Exactly. Say what you want about how high our gas taxes are--they don't cover the cost of fixing the roads that the cars and trucks that use the gas drive on.

If the cost of fixing and otherwise maintaining roads is, say, 22 cents/gallon then anything less than that is a tax rate that is too low.

Asking other taxes to, essentially, subsidize the roads and therefore keep gas taxes artificially low is just not good policy.
49weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 12:57
If the cost of fixing and otherwise maintaining roads is, say, 22 cents/gallon then anything less than that is a tax rate that is too low.

Asking other taxes to, essentially, subsidize the roads and therefore keep gas taxes artificially low is just not good policy.


If the cost of fixing/maintaining roads is say, 18.4 cent/gallon but if the government wastes 4 cents per gallon, then asking for more taxes is just not good policy.

As for more fuel efficiency, I would assume that some of that would be a result of buying lighter cars which would result in less wear and tear on our infrastructure. Whatever the reasoning it all seems like a push to me.
50Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 13:20
Cars are getting heavier again. The average vehicle weight crossed back over 4,000 lbs in the mid 2000s for the first time since the 70s. Those cars are getting much better mileage however. While some despise the gasoline engine and claim it hasn't made any improvements since it's invention 100 years ago, that isn't true. Today's cars get better or equal mpg than cars in the past, while being bigger, safer, faster and having more convienences.

The blog I linked above had an article where they were advocating for road repair taxes to be based on mileage, not gas consumption.
51Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 13:32
Asking other taxes to, essentially, subsidize the roads and therefore keep gas taxes artificially low is just not good policy.

Then why were you in favor of the stimulus package, much of which was supposed to be used for infrastructure......roads and bridges. The shovel ready projects that turned out to be not so shovel ready. That stimulus package eventually has to be paid out of tax revenues.
52Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 13:33
but if the government wastes 4 cents per gallon

Are you suggesting that the government is wasting 20% of tax dollars on collecting gas taxes? Where, exactly?

I suspect that your anti-government bias has caused you to just make up numbers. And roads have always cost more than the revenue from the gas taxes. Some studies put it at about half the cost, in fact.
53Boldwin
      ID: 8562116
      Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 20:40
Jibe
54Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 21:09
There are all of 50 companies listed as hiring on Jibe. Is that it? I signed on and allowed them to upload my resume from Linked in. Every company mentioned in my resume and work history is in the broadcasting field.

Here are my "Top Connected Categories":

Legal
106 Connections ( See All )
Advertising / Marketing
21 Connections ( See All )
Education
15 Connections ( See All )
Hospitality
6 Connections ( See All )
Creative
4 Connections ( See All )
PR / Events
4 Connections ( See All )
Health Care
3 Connections ( See All )
Finance
1 Connection ( See All )

Legal is presumably the top listed category because the company I worked for longest was CourtTV and there are a few references to court/legal related terms in my Linked in profile and possibly also because I'm connected to a few lawyers on Linked in. But none of the listed categories is a place where I would look for work.

Among the 50 companies they list as hiring on Jibe, the only one I recognized in my field is MTV. I also happen to know that MTV has a current job opening that matches pretty well with my experience. But I wasn't shown any MTV job listings.
55Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 21:25
Don't know about Jibe, but they're hiring in my town.

LEHI — The technology sector will add approximately 700 new jobs to Utah's economy over the next four years following the announcement of two major expansion projects.

link

56Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 21:40
Incidentially, the best and most comprehensive job listing site I've come across is indeed.com. But that's from the perspective of someone who's searches are all specifically for NYC area jobs in the broadcasting field.
57Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Tue, Jun 21, 2011, 22:00
Poking around Jibe's listings for me, I do see that a number of MTV openings do pop up as I click through the different categories. It doesn't seem very well coordinated and it's certainly not taylored very well to my resume, my work history or even my location. I didn't bother entering any specific search criteria or look around much for any other features to narrow it down.

I guess it's useful to see openings with companies where people I'm connected with are already employed or have some connection, since that can provide a really big leg up if it's someone you know well enough and who can at least put your resume on the right person's desk. But all that really does is potentially eliminate the step of cross referencing openings you find with your Linked In connections.
59Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 13:21

......................
Not only are there a lot of people unemployed, but they have been unemployed for a record length of time going back 60+ years. Where that line starts shooting up on the right is about when Obama took over.
61Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 13:43
That line started shooting up when the recession started. The line would be a heck of a lot higher if Barack Obama hadn't taken office in January 2009.
62Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 13:56
Are you trying to show another use of the hockey stick effect that has been criticized so many times when used by climate scientists?


63sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:13
thanks PD...mental lapse there on my part...elected Nov 08, sworn in Jan 09
64biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:15
A more honest and complete view of the data:

The Rational Republican
65biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:17
66biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:17
67Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:21
And so we're clear on why the House Republicans don't have a problem blocking Obama's jobs bill, it is because the unemployment level is just fine for those with college degrees (or better). Wealthy white people are doing well for themselves:

68Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:35
This holds true, btw, across races and sex.
69Tree
      ID: 30754714
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 16:02
ha. i use the chart in post 67 nearly every day in my current job.
70Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 16:26
Are you trying to show another use of the hockey stick effect that has been criticized so many times when used by climate scientists?


If you think that looks like a hockey stick, you should reconsider playing fantasy sports.
71Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 16:29
#64 A more honest and complete view of the data:

Are you suggesting my chart is not honest or is less than honest ?
72Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 16:32
I am. It goes back to 1948, so it is difficult to see whether your spin on it (blaming Obama) is accurate or not.
73biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 21:11
All charts and graphs have some bias, depending upon the story you want to tell and how well you are at creating the graph to tell that story.

You notice I said more honest.

74Boldwin
      ID: 609622
      Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 23:54
Adapting
Why has the number of American manufacturing jobs been decreasing so quickly?

The fundamental reason is that productivity in manufacturing has been rising rapidly and demand for manufactured products has been growing more slowly. To supply the stuff that people want requires fewer jobs.

And then, manufacturing is becoming feasible in more parts of the world. There is more competition, including from countries with much lower wages. As they emulate American production, they take market share.

What’s the best manufacturing strategy for the U.S. in that situation?

It’s certainly not playing defense and trying to save jobs. The U.S. has very, very high wages compared to other countries. Yet it also has a comparative advantage, which is deep knowledge, high R&D intensity, and the best science and technology base in the world.

The step that makes the most sense for the U.S. is to become the producer of the machinery that will power the next global manufacturing revolution. That is where the most complex and sophisticated products are, and that is the work that can pay higher wages.
---
So what are the opportunities for the U.S. in product space?

The U.S. has the problem that it’s competing with countries that pay much lower wages. American monkeys are under stress from other countries’ monkeys in regards to less complex, easier-to-make products. So the U.S. should look to the taller trees. The tallest trees in product space are pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and machinery. It’s very hard to get into those. Very few countries are in that game.

That is why I say the really long-term play is for the U.S. to be the source of the machinery that will power the coming global manufacturing revolution. The U.S. can grow by using capabilities that few others have.

Is there a manufacturing technology you see as game-changing?

I think 3-D printing could change the dynamics. I use 3-D printing as shorthand for shorter production runs, more design, and much closer to the market. It’s a paradigmatic shift in what manufacturing is going to look like.

Historically you think of manufacturing as an assembly line with thousands of workers, the UAW [United Auto Workers union], and benefits. But here we are talking about very small batches, made close to consumers, and customized. It will still be manufacturing, but a different kind of job in a different kind of company whose organization we don’t yet know.

Will the U.S. create jobs in this way?

If anything, a manufacturing revolution is going to accelerate a trend toward more efficiency. So from that point of view, for the U.S. to base its employment strategy on manufacturing sounds unrealistic. Manufacturing is low-employment.

What else is the U.S good at manufacturing?

If you look broadly at the U.S. product space, the country is super-competitive at agriculture and the industries that support it, like farm machinery, agrochemicals, and genetically modified seeds. It is strong in aerospace with Boeing, GE, Northrop Grumman, and Pratt & Whitney. It is a leader in pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, and it is the clear leader in information technology and the Internet. New industries often arise from the combination of capabilities, such as biotechnology that can move from medicine to seed development and pest control

How well is the U.S. doing in staying competitive?

For a while now, the U.S. has been much less focused on being competitive than most other places are. Americans have the feeling they are born to win, and if they don’t, someone else is cheating. The U.S. has many self-inflicted wounds. It has an infrastructure that’s increasingly lousy and a corporate tax rate higher than most countries’. But the most important [problem] is immigration policy. It’s been a real disaster by preventing the attraction and retention of the high-skilled people who come here to study and then don’t stay.
75Boldwin
      ID: 30137817
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 20:02
The mother of invention:
Various cuts:

Twelve days per month Larson rents his Marin County home on website Airbnb for $100 a night, of which he nets $97. Four nights a week he transforms his Prius into a de facto taxi via the ride-sharing service Lyft, pocketing another $100 a night in the process.

RelayRides and Getaround, which mimic Hertz or Avis except that the service itself owns nothing. Their fleets, about 50,000 combined at last count, draw from the tens of millions of autos idling in America’s driveways. SideCar and Lyft slice that market finer, monetizing an empty seat by letting owners tote along fee-paying passengers on routes they may already be taking.

A few dozen square feet in a driveway can now produce income via Parking Panda. A pooch-friendly room in your house is suddenly a pet penthouse via DogVacay. On Rentoid, an outdoorsy type with a newborn who suddenly notices her camping tent never gets used can rent it out at $10 a day to a city slicker who’d otherwise have to buy one. A drill lying fallow in a garage can become a $10-a-day income source

“This is a movement as important as when the web browser came out.”

“We’re moving from a world where we’re organized around ownership to one organized around access to assets,”

FORBES estimates the revenue flowing through the share economy directly into people’s wallets will surpass $3.5 billion this year, with growth exceeding 25%. At that rate peer-to-peer sharing is moving from an income boost in a stagnant wage market into a disruptive economic force.
Adapt or die.

I've heard very advanced thinking rich people talking about owning almost nothing whatsoever. Just tapping into assets as needed temporarily, moving all over the world on a whim.
76biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 23:05
I agree strongly with both those posts.

Only idiots rent storage units. Craigslist is one giant storage unit. Sell it when you aren't using it. Buy it back when you are ready to use it again.

I strongly second our lack of investment in infrastructure. If we don't turn that around, we are going to be a second world country in 30 years.

Rational immigration reform is 4 times as important. We are really close to the brains choosing to go elsewhere.
77Boldwin
      ID: 30137817
      Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 06:27
If we do institute 'rational immigration reform', ie just call anyone who wants it, a citizen...we will be elsewhere.
78sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 08:52
77, a shining example of the false-meme based fear mongering, propagated by the political right.

 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: Structural Unemployment

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days22
Last 30 days2017
Since Mar 1, 200749001430