Efficiency Causes Job Loss

[alan1]

The below is something I wrote and posted on another board a while back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Causes Job Loss

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.

I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, alan? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”

The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
Despite the decline in the US workforce involved in manufacturing the US has remained the country with largest output of manufactured goods for 110 years. This year (2010) China may finally overtake the US as the world’s largest manufacturer of goods. But then, they do have 4 times the population of the US.

I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum
The Chinese have still not taken 1st spot as the worlds largest manufacturer of goods. The US still held that title through 2010 and 2011.

We continue to hear from politicians that the US needs to increase the number of people working in manufacturing, and (not so) surprisingly enough the media (none of which work in manufacturing) continue to run with those stories about increasing manufacturing employment.
I'm still waiting for a politician or media talking head to say they want their child to have a manufacturing job.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

The below is something I wrote and posted on another board a while back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Causes Job Loss

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.

I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, alan? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”

The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
Despite the decline in the US workforce involved in manufacturing the US has remained the country with largest output of manufactured goods for 110 years. This year (2010) China may finally overtake the US as the world’s largest manufacturer of goods. But then, they do have 4 times the population of the US.

I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum
The Chinese have still not taken 1st spot as the worlds largest manufacturer of goods. The US still held that title through 2010 and 2011.

We continue to hear from politicians that the US needs to increase the number of people working in manufacturing, and (not so) surprisingly enough the media (none of which work in manufacturing) continue to run with those stories about increasing manufacturing employment.
I'm still waiting for a politician or media talking head to say they want their child to have a manufacturing job.

The reason people and politicians complain about losing manufacturing jobs, is not because of efficiency, its about shipping jobs oversees. Yes, todays manufacturers are more efficient then in the past, so less are needed in proportion to the population, but many of those jobs are still oversea's or in mexico. Truth be told, it wasn't even a big deal before the recession, because most of America was employed, so no one cared. It actually increased the GDP of America. Today it is a big deal because there are literally over a million jobs overseas that are run by American companies, while millions of American's can't find jobs.

 

[DSGE]

The below is something I wrote and posted on another board a while back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Causes Job Loss

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.

I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, alan? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”

The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
Despite the decline in the US workforce involved in manufacturing the US has remained the country with largest output of manufactured goods for 110 years. This year (2010) China may finally overtake the US as the world’s largest manufacturer of goods. But then, they do have 4 times the population of the US.

I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum
The Chinese have still not taken 1st spot as the worlds largest manufacturer of goods. The US still held that title through 2010 and 2011.

We continue to hear from politicians that the US needs to increase the number of people working in manufacturing, and (not so) surprisingly enough the media (none of which work in manufacturing) continue to run with those stories about increasing manufacturing employment.
I'm still waiting for a politician or media talking head to say they want their child to have a manufacturing job.

The reason people and politicians complain about losing manufacturing jobs, is not because of efficiency, its about shipping jobs oversees. Yes, todays manufacturers are more efficient then in the past, so less are needed in proportion to the population, but many of those jobs are still oversea's or in mexico. Truth be told, it wasn't even a big deal before the recession, because most of America was employed, so no one cared. It actually increased the GDP of America. Today it is a big deal because there are literally over a million jobs overseas that are run by American companies, while millions of American's can't find jobs.

I think you kinda missed the point there. The example demonstrates that there aren't finitely many jobs. If it took 90% of labour to produce food, now it takes 3%, that doesn't mean 87% of labour is without a job for the rest of their lives. Instead it frees up labour to go and do something else productive. Jobs get destroyed in one place, and they get created in another. The example demonstrates the fallacy of finitely many jobs. It confirms that for as long as people continue to want things, there will continue to be jobs for everybody.

 

[alan1]

The reason people and politicians complain about losing manufacturing jobs, is not because of efficiency, its about shipping jobs oversees. Yes, todays manufacturers are more efficient then in the past, so less are needed in proportion to the population, but many of those jobs are still oversea's or in mexico. Truth be told, it wasn't even a big deal before the recession, because most of America was employed, so no one cared. It actually increased the GDP of America. Today it is a big deal because there are literally over a million jobs overseas that are run by American companies, while millions of American's can't find jobs.

Please see the post by DSGE.

I find it hilarious when people use the term "shipping jobs overseas". Have you ever been to a port? I have, and I've never seen a container being exported that contained jobs, only ones that contained products. The term "shipping jobs overseas" is a neural linguistic term that really means nothing but seems to get people emotionally aroused.

I have to wonder if you are also upset that 70% of Toyota cars that are sold in the US are manufactured in the US? Does it upset you that those poor Japanese people had their jobs (to use your term) "shipped overseas" to the US? What about Nissan, Mercedes Benz, Hyundai, Siemens, Tesco, BMW? Or is this a one way street for you?
But I digress.

In some places in the world, human labor is still cheaper than technology. That is changing, and those people will lose their assembly line jobs at some point (think cheap labor in China). This notion that manufacturing jobs (assembly line) is supposed to be a boon to an economy is an old economic model. Technology is replacing it, just as technology allows us to produce so much more food with so much fewer labor. Clinging to an extinct model is not going to make things better. Again, I ask, name a politician that want's his child to grow up and have a manufacturing job.

 

[syrenn]

The below is something I wrote and posted on another board a while back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Causes Job Loss

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.

I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, alan? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”

The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
Despite the decline in the US workforce involved in manufacturing the US has remained the country with largest output of manufactured goods for 110 years. This year (2010) China may finally overtake the US as the world’s largest manufacturer of goods. But then, they do have 4 times the population of the US.

I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum
The Chinese have still not taken 1st spot as the worlds largest manufacturer of goods. The US still held that title through 2010 and 2011.

We continue to hear from politicians that the US needs to increase the number of people working in manufacturing, and (not so) surprisingly enough the media (none of which work in manufacturing) continue to run with those stories about increasing manufacturing employment.
I'm still waiting for a politician or media talking head to say they want their child to have a manufacturing job.

Yes it does, and the unions know it too. Which is why they are some of the slowest slug workers out there.

 

[uscitizen]

The below is something I wrote and posted on another board a while back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Efficiency Causes Job Loss

In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans were employed in agriculture.

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there's every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink.

I’m sure some of you are asking, “What the hell is your point, alan? Farming and manufacturing aren’t related.”

The answer isn’t about farming or manufacturing, it’s about efficiency. The reason it only takes 3% of Americans to produce the food we eat is because of the gains in efficiency over the methods the farmers of the past used. The same is true for manufacturing. Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is about $234,000. Output per worker is about three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. That’s efficiency in action.
Despite the decline in the US workforce involved in manufacturing the US has remained the country with largest output of manufactured goods for 110 years. This year (2010) China may finally overtake the US as the world’s largest manufacturer of goods. But then, they do have 4 times the population of the US.

I can’t find any articles about politicians of the past gnashing their teeth and bemoaning the loss of farm jobs because farms were becoming more efficient. So why is it that today’s politicians are wailing and screaming about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Do the politicians want the US worker to be less productive? Have you ever heard a politician say he wants his child to grow up and get a manufacturing job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum
The Chinese have still not taken 1st spot as the worlds largest manufacturer of goods. The US still held that title through 2010 and 2011.

We continue to hear from politicians that the US needs to increase the number of people working in manufacturing, and (not so) surprisingly enough the media (none of which work in manufacturing) continue to run with those stories about increasing manufacturing employment.
I'm still waiting for a politician or media talking head to say they want their child to have a manufacturing job.

The reason people and politicians complain about losing manufacturing jobs, is not because of efficiency, its about shipping jobs oversees. Yes, todays manufacturers are more efficient then in the past, so less are needed in proportion to the population, but many of those jobs are still oversea's or in mexico. Truth be told, it wasn't even a big deal before the recession, because most of America was employed, so no one cared. It actually increased the GDP of America. Today it is a big deal because there are literally over a million jobs overseas that are run by American companies, while millions of American's can't find jobs.

I think you kinda missed the point there. The example demonstrates that there aren't finitely many jobs. If it took 90% of labour to produce food, now it takes 3%, that doesn't mean 87% of labour is without a job for the rest of their lives. Instead it frees up labour to go and do something else productive. Jobs get destroyed in one place, and they get created in another. The example demonstrates the fallacy of finitely many jobs. It confirms that for as long as people continue to want things, there will continue to be jobs for everybody.

Yep jobs get destroyed in the USA and created in low wage overseas countries.

and yes increase efficiencies mean lower wages, less employees, etc.
or perhaps price increases.
Does inflation increase efficiencies?

 

[American Horse]

But there is no question that US Govt. policies destroy US jobs and drive new manufacturing, products, whole new industries offshore. The passage of Sarbanes-Oxley alone has removed the US from being the premier seat of new IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) and passed that position to China. That's because the cost of each new public offering in the US now exceeds $1-million for accounting compliance costs to be listed in our stock market.

This drives innovators/intrepreneurs into the arms of the wealthiest investors (who have a million bucks to lose) or they take them where they are welcome, and all the new jobs, even new manufacturing products and all the peripheral and related manufacturing operations that will spin off them . . . go elsewhere.

Efficiency is good, it lower costs to the end consumer, and means there have been advancements that can be utilized everywhere else in manufacturing, creating gains in new higher end job openings, but tax and regulatory policy is nullifying those gains, and the jobs go elsewhere. If the only taxes paid on corporate earnings were taxed on the 1040 form as individual income we'd have a 20% better labor cost position than we now have, and manufacturing products in China and elsewhere wouldn't have the shine it now has.

 

[DSGE]

The reason people and politicians complain about losing manufacturing jobs, is not because of efficiency, its about shipping jobs oversees. Yes, todays manufacturers are more efficient then in the past, so less are needed in proportion to the population, but many of those jobs are still oversea's or in mexico. Truth be told, it wasn't even a big deal before the recession, because most of America was employed, so no one cared. It actually increased the GDP of America. Today it is a big deal because there are literally over a million jobs overseas that are run by American companies, while millions of American's can't find jobs.

I think you kinda missed the point there. The example demonstrates that there aren't finitely many jobs. If it took 90% of labour to produce food, now it takes 3%, that doesn't mean 87% of labour is without a job for the rest of their lives. Instead it frees up labour to go and do something else productive. Jobs get destroyed in one place, and they get created in another. The example demonstrates the fallacy of finitely many jobs. It confirms that for as long as people continue to want things, there will continue to be jobs for everybody.

Yep jobs get destroyed in the USA and created in low wage overseas countries.

and yes increase efficiencies mean lower wages, less employees, etc.
or perhaps price increases.
Does inflation increase efficiencies?

Right. We'd all have a higher standard of living if we went back to needing 90% of the population to make food. If you're going to claim bullshit that's completely inconsistent with the most rudimentary economics, at least show how it's consistent with the example given in the OP.

 

[uscitizen]

But there is no question that US Govt. policies destroy US jobs and drive new manufacturing, products, whole new industries offshore. The passage of Sarbanes-Oxley alone has removed the US from being the premier seat of new IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) and passed that position to China. That's because the cost of each new public offering in the US now exceeds $1-million for accounting compliance costs to be listed in our stock market.

This drives innovators/intrepreneurs into the arms of the wealthiest investors (who have a million bucks to lose) or they take them where they are welcome, and all the new jobs, even new manufacturing products and all the peripheral and related manufacturing operations that will spin off them . . . go elsewhere.

Efficiency is good, it lower costs to the end consumer, and means there have been advancements that can be utilized everywhere else in manufacturing, creating gains in new higher end job openings, but tax and regulatory policy is nullifying those gains, and the jobs go elsewhere. If the only taxes paid on corporate earnings were taxed on the 1040 form as individual income we'd have a 20% better labor cost position than we now have, and manufacturing products in China and elsewhere wouldn't have the shine it now has.

If corps would play honestly we would not need the regulations.
History has proven the regs to be necessary.
And 1 million reg complaince cost for a multi billion IPO?
Heck, corps pay that for one commercial.

 

[uscitizen]

I think you kinda missed the point there. The example demonstrates that there aren't finitely many jobs. If it took 90% of labour to produce food, now it takes 3%, that doesn't mean 87% of labour is without a job for the rest of their lives. Instead it frees up labour to go and do something else productive. Jobs get destroyed in one place, and they get created in another. The example demonstrates the fallacy of finitely many jobs. It confirms that for as long as people continue to want things, there will continue to be jobs for everybody.

Yep jobs get destroyed in the USA and created in low wage overseas countries.

and yes increase efficiencies mean lower wages, less employees, etc.
or perhaps price increases.
Does inflation increase efficiencies?

Right. We'd all have a higher standard of living if we went back to needing 90% of the population to make food. If you're going to claim bullshit that's completely inconsistent with the most rudimentary economics, at least show how it's consistent with the example given in the OP.

I was expanding on the concept of the OP.
In a consumer spending driven economy creating lower wages and lower employment does not create more jobs.

Now if our economy was mainly based on exports that would be a different story.

 

[likeabird03]

I had a thought the other evening while checking out at a local drug store. A drug store not unlike the one that I worked as a photo developer when I was in college. This was only 8 years ago and back then the photo desk that I worked at had about 3 or 4 workers at any given time, two photo machines worth over a hundred thousand dollars and a steady stream of business. When I looked over at the photo dept the other evening, no employees, not even a machine - just a little drop box where you can leave your film or microchip so they can be sent out to be developed.

Unfortunately advances in technology, especially in recent decades has eroded away at our labor market. There's not much we can do about that, and I don't believe that we should.

To be frank, the technology breakthroughs we've had in the past two decades - while revolutionizing the way we play and communicate, have failed to create the type of employment necessary to soak up the very workers that the very same technology has cannibalized. Neither do I think it has really increased our standard of living in any other meaningful way.

If you don't believe me, think about where those workers are now... the travel agents, photo techs, factory workers, the local check out girl. Technology has failed to create any growth engine to replace these jobs lost. Where do they get employed? Financial services, government? Not going to work.

 

[uscitizen]

I went from nothing to 3/4 million in less than 2 years.
And to nearly 2 million net worth in 6 years.
I no longer fool with counting my net worth.
And I sold no stock.

And if corporate income was taxed as individual income they would pay lots of taxes since they would lose most of their deductions.
I have a bit of trouble depreciating my personal posessions on income taxes, nor can I deduct for insurance, SS I pay in, etc.
Heck I cannot even deduct my food I buy to keep myself alive, yet a corporation can deduct virtually all expenses.

Some corporations have multi billion income and wind up with a tax credit.

 

[American Horse]

But there is no question that US Govt. policies destroy US jobs and drive new manufacturing, products, whole new industries offshore. The passage of Sarbanes-Oxley alone has removed the US from being the premier seat of new IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) and passed that position to China. That's because the cost of each new public offering in the US now exceeds $1-million for accounting compliance costs to be listed in our stock market.

This drives innovators/intrepreneurs into the arms of the wealthiest investors (who have a million bucks to lose) or they take them where they are welcome, and all the new jobs, even new manufacturing products and all the peripheral and related manufacturing operations that will spin off them . . . go elsewhere.

Efficiency is good, it lower costs to the end consumer, and means there have been advancements that can be utilized everywhere else in manufacturing, creating gains in new higher end job openings, but tax and regulatory policy is nullifying those gains, and the jobs go elsewhere. If the only taxes paid on corporate earnings were taxed on the 1040 form as individual income we'd have a 20% better labor cost position than we now have, and manufacturing products in China and elsewhere wouldn't have the shine it now has.

If corps would play honestly we would not need the regulations.
History has proven the regs to be necessary.
And 1 million reg complaince cost for a multi billion IPO?
Heck, corps pay that for one commercial.

But it's not a Billion dollar IPO on day one, it is just a potential. The flight of IPOs from ths US show that those with ideas are taking them elsewhere. These are not Facebook, or Apple, not even Groupon. These are oftentimes product manufacturing IPOs. When was the last time one of those went to billion dollar valuations? And those are the jobs this OP is decrying.

And the regs: Here's a link to a post of mine on Sarbox

Take Dodd Frank: It is completely destroying the banking system at the community level. The big banks can do well in that type of regulatory environment, but not the local banks. Used to be there were small local banks where a person out here in the hinterlands could go with a good idea and good credit and within a few years of proven results borrow a half million-$ to create something new, hire people, and improve the community. (I know because I went from nothing to that half million loan in less than five years) Now those small banks are so regulated and have to staff up to comply to such a degree that they will soon be gone.

 

[DSGE]

Yep jobs get destroyed in the USA and created in low wage overseas countries.

and yes increase efficiencies mean lower wages, less employees, etc.
or perhaps price increases.
Does inflation increase efficiencies?

Right. We'd all have a higher standard of living if we went back to needing 90% of the population to make food. If you're going to claim bullshit that's completely inconsistent with the most rudimentary economics, at least show how it's consistent with the example given in the OP.

I was expanding on the concept of the OP.
In a consumer spending driven economy creating lower wages and lower employment does not create more jobs.

Now if our economy was mainly based on exports that would be a different story.

You think what you said was expanding on the OP, not contradicting it? Fuck it. I don't care. You've clearly already got your conclusion and no amount of reasoning will change that. It'll just give me a headache.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

But there is no question that US Govt. policies destroy US jobs and drive new manufacturing, products, whole new industries offshore. The passage of Sarbanes-Oxley alone has removed the US from being the premier seat of new IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) and passed that position to China. That's because the cost of each new public offering in the US now exceeds $1-million for accounting compliance costs to be listed in our stock market.

This drives innovators/intrepreneurs into the arms of the wealthiest investors (who have a million bucks to lose) or they take them where they are welcome, and all the new jobs, even new manufacturing products and all the peripheral and related manufacturing operations that will spin off them . . . go elsewhere.

Efficiency is good, it lower costs to the end consumer, and means there have been advancements that can be utilized everywhere else in manufacturing, creating gains in new higher end job openings, but tax and regulatory policy is nullifying those gains, and the jobs go elsewhere. If the only taxes paid on corporate earnings were taxed on the 1040 form as individual income we'd have a 20% better labor cost position than we now have, and manufacturing products in China and elsewhere wouldn't have the shine it now has.

If corps would play honestly we would not need the regulations.
History has proven the regs to be necessary.
And 1 million reg complaince cost for a multi billion IPO?
Heck, corps pay that for one commercial.

Which regulations? Do you have definitive proof that absolutely every single regulation we have is absolutely necessary, including the massive amount of new regulations that have come down in the last 3 years? Do you even know what all the regulations we have are?

The question is not whether regulations in general are good or bad. A certain amount of regulation is absolutely necessary in all areas. The questions are how much regulation, regulation of what, regulations for what reasons, and whether the economic costs are worth the potential benefits of said regulation.

Rather than try to turn it into a, "It's either everything the democrats want to regulate or laissez faire" argument. That's what's called a straw man argument. These are not the only two possibilities.

 

[American Horse]

I went from nothing to 3/4 million in less than 2 years.
And to nearly 2 million net worth in 6 years.
I no longer fool with counting my net worth.
And I sold no stock.

That's cool, and I'd bet you created at least some new jobs. If so were they in manufacturing?

But, while you could do it because you had the necessary skill, most likely lots of street smarts and some background in your line, take the alternative: the guy who is employed as an engineer or junior engineer in a small or large corporate manufacturing operation who comes up with an invention or a new application; he just has a salable idea but it takes a lot more capital and a large market to make it work. I know I've seen lots of small manufacturers spinoff off places here in my city (Westinghouse, Otis Elevator (General Dynamics, G.E.) who saw their good jobs going away and opened a small shop, some making it and some not, with a few getting somewhat larger over time.

But there's a lot of genious out there that can create something new and much larger than those ordinary spin-offs, and create wealth for others besides themselves; as I said, whole new industries in some cases. Better here than elsewhere. There are advantages to being here, since this is the biggest market besides China. But make it onerous enough and they will go to the second largest potential market, in spite of the shipping costs to get their products back to the US. And once China gets it's hook in it doesn't let go.

I think it's interesting that the biggest commercial glass job to be done in the US in recent years had to be done by a Chinese company. No US company could do it or even wanted to bid. That was a year or two ago. We're losing it, and we don't have to.

 

[uscitizen]

Right. We'd all have a higher standard of living if we went back to needing 90% of the population to make food. If you're going to claim bullshit that's completely inconsistent with the most rudimentary economics, at least show how it's consistent with the example given in the OP.

I was expanding on the concept of the OP.
In a consumer spending driven economy creating lower wages and lower employment does not create more jobs.

Now if our economy was mainly based on exports that would be a different story.

You think what you said was expanding on the OP, not contradicting it? Fuck it. I don't care. You've clearly already got your conclusion and no amount of reasoning will change that. It'll just give me a headache.

Reasoning was how I arrived at my conclusions on this topic.

 

[uscitizen]

"We're losing it, and we don't have to."

Now that I fully agree with.

One thing I agree with on China with.

When a corp is caught in something like the poison dog food or Heprin scandals they will execute the head of the company.

 

[Wiseacre]

The American consumer is buying less than they used to. Over the past 25-30 years, we've over-leveraged our credit, based on home equity that has disappeared. We don't have the wealth, or the sense that we can afford to borrow like we used to. So, demand is down, and until wages and employment begin to go up at a higher rate then the rate of new workers entering the job market, we're kinda stuck in quicksand. Doesn't look to me like things are going to get a whole lot better any time soon.

People bitch about jobs going overseas. One big reason for that is because demand is up overseas, other economies are growing faster than ours, and it's cheaper to make our stuff there than it is to make it here and ship it there. In some cases it's also cheaper to make it there and ship it here, although it's less so than before due to the higher shipping costs. Deal with it - jobs that went overseas are not coming back. So what's better, having multi-national companies here that have some jobs here and most elsewhere, or multi-nationals that move all their jobs elsewhere cuz we made it too expensive or too much trouble to stay here. Other countries are making it more attractive to move there, and we're increasing the costs of doing business here. How stupid is that?

As for the OP about efficiency, which is another word for productivity, there's no doubt that we've lost jobs for just that reason. Might even be the number 1 reason, but that's progress for ya. I see no solution for that, except to compete for the jobs of the future. Those jobs are going to exist somewhere, but they won't be here if we don't stop screwing around.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I went from nothing to 3/4 million in less than 2 years.
And to nearly 2 million net worth in 6 years.
I no longer fool with counting my net worth.
And I sold no stock.

And if corporate income was taxed as individual income they would pay lots of taxes since they would lose most of their deductions.
I have a bit of trouble depreciating my personal posessions on income taxes, nor can I deduct for insurance, SS I pay in, etc.
Heck I cannot even deduct my food I buy to keep myself alive, yet a corporation can deduct virtually all expenses.

Some corporations have multi billion income and wind up with a tax credit.

You're really comparing apples and oranges here. Your food intake, your personal possessions, the SS you pay. . . these are all the end results of profit. The owner(s)/shareholders in charge of a corporation also pay personal income tax, separate from taxes on the corporation's actual profits, wherein the end results of whatever portion of that corporation's profit went to its owners are equally non-deductible/non-depreciating. The reason the corporation gets to write off those expenses is because the corporation is taxed based on its profits. Profits do not include overhead, thus the overhead is subtracted from the gross to determine the profit. Part of that overhead is whatever portion of a capital investment's depreciation is acknowledged to have taken place in the year for which the corporation is filing, and yet another part of that overhead includes expenses like employee salaries/benefits/social security taxes (the half that the employer is responsible for). If 1 billion dollars comes in, but only 700 million of it was money that the corporation actually got to keep above and beyond what it already had, then why wouldn't they be allowed to deduct what wasn't profit? Individuals don't have to pay taxes on income that they don't receive, either.

On top of that, if you decide to start your own business, all by yourself, then guess what? YOU GET TO DEDUCT EXPENSES TOO! You even get to depreciate and deduct items that you buy specifically for that business. Hell, even if you -don't- start your own business you get to deduct the cost of virtually anything that you have to purchase specifically to furnish your occupation (that is, above and beyond what you would have had to buy anyway, regardless of that occupation. Lunches, for instance. It's generally understood that you'd be buying lunches for yourself on a daily basis whether you were at work or not, but even those under the right working circumstances can be deducted). You can also deduct a certain amount for charitable donations, just like heartless rich folk and evil corporations. Best of all, if you didn't have to spend anything to furnish your occupation. . . say you got a ride to work from a coworker every day who didn't ask for gas money, had all your tools/implements/uniforms provided to you by your employer, and literally didn't have to buy anything for work. . . and if you also didn't incur any major losses for the year, didn't donate shit to anyone, didn't have to take care of anyone besides yourself, had no education costs, and didn't have to spend one red cent on anything except your own personal maintenance and recreation. . . the government is -still- willing to take your word for it that you had (in 2011) 5,800 dollars worth of deductable expenses, and allow you to take that deduction without accounting for ANY of it.

That said, a lot of corporate wellfare does take place in this country that needs to stop. It's my opinion that the government needn't be handing out most of the money that it does, especially to people that profited and don't need it. And especially to inept people that can't profit and feel they're entitled to bailouts on the backs of the taxpayers. Especially since the government doesn't turn profits to fund its "generosity". Everything it hands out it has to take from someone else. Maybe I didn't want to help GM find a more profitable model without going through the bankruptcy process and cutting the fat like everybody else. It might sound heartless, but maybe I had other plans in mind for the portion of my taxes that were only necessary (will only be necessary, once the markers get called in for all the money that's been borrowed on my behalf) because the administration didn't want to see too many of their union constituents getting laid off. Maybe I'd like to spend that money helping people I know and love/care about rather than give it to the government to (typically inefficiently) help people I never have and never will meet.

Seems to me righties -and- lefties in office need to stop giving my money to their buddies.