Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 22,788
Number of posts: 22,788
- 2016 (33)
- 2015 (25)
- 2014 (40)
- 2013 (42)
- 2012 (80)
- 2011 (5)
- December (5)
- Older Archives
U.S. has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000
Totally not "zero sum".
Trump and Bernie Sanders blame China for undercutting American workers with cheap labor (even Trump makes a lot of his suits and ties overseas). But there's another big factor: technology. Robots and machines are also replacing workers. The tech trend would have happened regardless of trade.
Still, manufacturing remains a key part of the U.S. economy. Over 12.3 million Americans are employed in the industry. But it's not the powerhouse it was.
In 1960, about one in four American workers had a job in manufacturing. Today fewer than one in 10 are employed in the sector, according to government data.
Call it the Great Shift. Workers transitioned from the fields to the factories. Now they are moving from factories to service counters and health care centers. The fastest growing jobs in America now are nurses, personal care aides, cooks, waiters, retail salespersons and operations managers.
Oh, and this . . .
$75 a day vs. $75,000 a year: How we lost jobs to Mexico
"This promise that we can reverse everything with the snap of a finger is a false siren," says economist Charles Ballard of Michigan State University.
One expert, Robert Scott at the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that the U.S. lost roughly 800,000 jobs to Mexico between 1997 and 2013. He cites NAFTA -- the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1993 -- as the key driver for job losses.
Before NAFTA, Mexico's government had restrictions on foreign companies and who they could hire. NAFTA nullified those rules and America's trade deficit with Mexico has ballooned -- meaning we're bringing in a lot more goods from Mexico than we're sending there. That's good for American consumers but bad for manufacturing workers.
"The agreement is a failure," says Scott. "We sign trade deals that encourage manufacturing firms to outsource jobs to other countries."
Cheaper labor, lower environmental standards and low export taxes -- or tariffs -- make Mexico an attractive place to move operations, not to mention that it's next door to America. Add on NAFTA -- the success of which is debatable -- and you can see why so many U.S. companies crossed the border. Almost every large U.S. manufacturer, from Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) to Procter & Gamble (PG) and Caterpillar (CAT) has production facilities in Mexico.
Aaaaaaand this . . .
Americans fear a life of 'dead-end crap jobs with crap wages'
"The anger is boiling over. Enough of the American people have got it through their heads that the American Dream is dead for us," says Jo-Ann, who lives in Pennsylvania. She requested that her last name be withheld for this article so it wouldn't impact her ongoing search for a better job.
The economy is the No. 1 issue on voters' minds even though America is growing, unemployment is incredibly low (4.9%) and gas is cheap.
"I thank God I don't have a kid. I don't know what I would tell them," she says. Her advice to young people is to skip college and learn a trade like plumbing that probably won't be shipped overseas. She supports Sanders. She agrees with him (and Trump) that trade deals like NAFTA are part of the problem.
Ricardo Bustamente has worked for years as a technician at Verizon. He's often told "do more with less." He's learned that means more work for him as others get laid off, but no extra pay.
"My biggest fear is that this country is going to become a nation of have and have nots. People at my level are slowing dying out," says Bustamente, who is about to turn 43 and has three kids.
He hasn't gotten a raise in almost 8 years, but his expenses keep going up. He drives a 10-year old car and his wife diligently clips coupons and buys items on sale.
"I'm literally making less money every year," he says. If he loses his job, his family might lose their house.
Bustamente likes a lot of what Sanders is saying, especially on making college and health care more affordable, but he doesn't think Congress would ever enact Sanders' policies. Still, he is glad Sanders entered the race and has influenced Hillary Clinton.
"Slowly but surely I see myself and others around me eroding. We're definitely not moving up. We're moving backward," he says.
Yeah. It's all in our head. The middle/working/poor are living like KINGS!!! Our homeless are the world's Larry Ellisons.
Sometimes, the tent is just too fucking big, and you know it.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:04 PM (11 replies)
This isn't going to end well. AT all.
The success of "Rugged Individualism" depends on people with disposable income. Actually, the success of economics, period, depends on people with disposable income. It depends on customers with money coming through a door.
Take that away by the millions upon millions and what do you have?
Millions of starving and homeless people, that's what.
You think the banks, creditors, Republican politicians and Cold-War fighting America are going to stand for "I'm sorry, but what am I supposed to do? Everything's automated and I have no money to better myself through your expensive universities. Even if I did, where are the jobs? The CEOs offshored and fired everyone, still practice ageism and do more with less. What am I supposed to do??"?? Think they're going to accept that? "Fuck you, pay me." "I CAN'T!!!!!" "Fuck you, pay me!" And then you get jailed or shot, because that's how shit goes in America and it's not going to change. You're going to lose your roof and starve. That's what's going to happen.
I just love the online Buckminster Fullers that think this is going to lead to fair re-distribution of wealth, a guaranteed minimum income, a "clean start over". I JUST FUCKING LAUGH.
Where do you people think you live? Who runs America? Who supports those who run America?
What are you going to do, run for office? WITH WHAT MONEY??
You think you'd get support from THAT purchased media? You think you'd get support from the people still fighting the Cold War? Child, PLEASE.
Anyone thinks what I'm saying is bleak? Lotsa "hair on fire" paranoia? REALLY?? I'm RIGHT ON THIS, and you know I am. Deep down inside, you know that should the economic catastrophe of everything not nailed down being automated and offshored WON'T lead to a clean start, it's going to lead to mass homelessness and murders. Most likely a lot of y'all will be murdered, because the police and the military are nothing but lapdogs for the wealthy and will protect the wealthy at all cost and with blunt force. There'll be no revolt, there'll be slaughter.
"Fuck you, pay me". That's America. That's the America everyone voted for. Everyone thinks conservatives and their brand of "hand-ups, not hand-outs" economics is so fucking awesome. "Soshulism is grate untel u run outs of udder peeples money haw haw haw", right? Is that what they like to say? I say "Capitalism's awesome until you realize robots can't buy products". Inevitable conclusion, folks. Give the money to the non-caring and sociopathic Once-lers of the world, and this is what's going to happen.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Wed Mar 30, 2016, 01:00 PM (1 replies)
. . . . and then you wake up and realize we live in America, which is run by corporate-purchased politicians, where none of that is GOING to happen (no matter how desperately it NEEDS to happen).
The apparent solution on one side is a Guaranteed Minimum Income, which isn't going to happen in any of our lifetimes. Don't get me wrong, it's YEARS past time that it needs to happen. But the reality is, Paul Ryan controls the purse strings and Americans are, plain and simple, stupid bastards that like yelling with Fox News. So hoping that these voters will put the politicians in that will consider instituting GMI is like hoping the majority of our citizens will someday learn there's no value in demonizing concepts and people that aren't revolved around worshipping wealth.
(and before anyone says "well, Hugh, calling them 'stupid bastards' isn't going a long way of getting them on our side" YOU KNOW, WHATEVS. These people are grown adults; I don't have time to recalibrate the fuckered parts of their head, I have my own problems to deal with. If they want to believe bullshit fairy tales like trickle-up socialism will lead to the benefactors and handlers being more benevolent or an invisible sky daddy will make their lives better while blowin' up the Mooslims and Commies, that's on them, not me. If they want to believe they're better than someone because they're white, fuck them. They need to wake up, grow up and OWN up. Stop believing in religions; that includes their precious "free marketz". There's a start.)
The apparent "solution" on the other side is "well, you need to be less dependent on 'Uncle Sugar', make your OWN opportunities and start taking RISKS!" Um. OK. I'm so grateful for that sage piece of wisdom, Andrew Carnegie. That's about as helpful to me as saying "win the lottery" or "here's a pile of bricks, pipes and wood, build a house." In all actuality, attempting to win the lottery is less of a risk since I can recover $20 as opposed to $2000 or $20,000.
What will I sell? Who'll be the audience for that product? How will I manufacture it? How will I survive other people selling similar things? How do I compete with corporations that have me at a cost advantage from jump? Can I live with more periods of making no money vs. periods of making money (IF such periods come)? Will my net be as much as I'm making now (I can pretty much tell you the answer to that question . . . NO)? Sorry, I can't afford to move backwards in life; I'm not 22 years old any more, I have only NOW and these bills in front of me that aren't going away.
So . . . can anyone tell me why I should have any sort of hope for my kid's future success or my retirement prospects? Does anyone have any kind of solution that's going to WORK? Multiply economic regression by millions upon millions of citizens and, sorry to break this to you, you're going to have a heaping biblical problem on your hands that's likely going to turn bloody and ugly. If you're proposing every generation from now on will have to work until they're gurneyed out while throwing our kids to an economic environment that offers such minimal opportunity to succeed (with an enormous entrance fee, of course) . . . that's not much to look forward to. That's going to lead to cataclysm and murders. How can we avoid this?
"Wow, so much 'hair on fire'." Well, hey, what say you? You know I'm right about this. Every move we make has to be the right one. Keep making more stupid moves, America, and watch our kid's futures go over Niagara Falls.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Mon Mar 21, 2016, 09:29 AM (1 replies)
On CNBC every DAY, it seems . . . shilling for Theocrat Ted, circling the wagons on Kasuck.
Why can't cash-and-carry job destroyers who failed at politics just fade into the background?
How do we come to hatch people like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina?
Posted by HughBeaumont | Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:46 AM (0 replies)
. . . jury's still out on O'Malley . . . not many Ohio progressives are fans of his.
McGinty's doom centered around the fact that he let two drive by shooter cops walk without incident and blamed a 12 year old for his own death.
O'Malley's campaign sought to tap into voter anger over McGinty's investigation of the death of Tamir Rice, the Cleveland 12-year-old who was shot by police outside a recreation center in Nov. 22, 2014.
At the time, Tamir was in possession of an Airsoft pellet gun. A grand jury declined to indict the two officers involved. McGinty had recommended the grand jury not return indictments. The shooting and the grand jury's decision resulted in demonstrations by Black Lives matter and other groups.
McGinty was the second prosecuting attorney to lose a re-election bid in the wake of controversial police killings.
Voters in Illinois ousted Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, who came under fire for her handling of the Chicago Police shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:59 AM (13 replies)
. . . . if the people that posted it would actually rip on a Republican.
ONE Republican politician. ONE Republican policy. ONE. Take 'em to task. Tell us why they're wrong. Tell us why their policies are reprehensible.
I'll be over here waiting . . .
Posted by HughBeaumont | Fri Mar 4, 2016, 03:05 PM (3 replies)
CEOs who would automate or offshore/inshore every job except their own if they could (as long as their products are still bought) are not "Job Creators".
"Peace through Strength" makes about as much sense as "Sobriety through Alcoholism" or "Virginity through Fucking".
You're posting on a product of government largesse. The roof you live under was the product of governmental origination. The concept of "property" has always been rooted in law. You were educated in a government funded entity. The road you drive on is repaired on your dime. The air you breathe is made clean thanks to your tax dollars. The job you go to is safe and free of child labor thanks to government and the unions that demanded government do something about both problems. Because of these facts and many others, not a single solitary person on Earth can logically call themselves "Self Made". I'm fine with that. Aren't you?
Poor people spending money keep you employed every day of your life. Taking money away from people who have to spend every dime would cause an economic catastrophe, not motivate them to be better.
Speaking of which, logically explain to me how someone "Supersizes their Skill Set, Haw Haw" in costly 2016 making 7.25 an hour or less.
Six corporations owning all of your news, information and entertainment doesn't in any goddamned universe make that media "liberal".
We have not been practicing Keynesianism for four decades, Reagan and Dubya were not "statists", a Fair Tax benefits the idle wealthy and screws the middle/working/poor, abolishing the minimum wage will not inspire the owner to pay you better, there IS income inequality, there IS wage stagnation and Adolf Hitler was not a fucking lefty. Stop listening to right-leaning libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, they're a bunch of fuckknob men's rights activists who would rather die than blame conservatives or corporations for any of our problems.
Finally, to anyone who believes the St. Reagan chestnut "Government IS the Problem" (and when you say that, let's not play dumb, you REALLY mean "LIB'RULS IS the problem") . . . count how many moderates, center-righters, Republicans and batshit-insane Theocrat neo-fascists exist in our government compared to actual FDR progressives. Sorry kiddo, your kind is tipping that scale in a millisecond.
You are more "government" than we are by a mile, wingnuts, so stop bitching, get out of the Reagan 1980s and LIVE IN THE NOW!!
Posted by HughBeaumont | Sat Feb 20, 2016, 09:02 AM (11 replies)
He can defeat any of our candidates. For realz, yo.
The exception for cases of rape has always illustrated a major gap in the logic behind the pro-life movement. A fetus is still a fetus, whether it’s conceived by rape or by consenting sex. The only difference between the two is the consequences under which they’re conceived; one is done with the will of the mother, the other isn’t.
For many years, the idea that women would be forced to have the child of their rapist was so abhorrent that nearly all legislation regarding limits to abortion included language accounting for this exception. However, recent years have seen a change. As pro-life groups continue to bully Republican lawmakers into doing their bidding, there’s been a slow shift towards forcing women to have babies conceived in rape. It’s heartless, it’s anti-utilitarian, and it’s evil, but to pro-lifers at least it’s internally consistent. And it highlights how the “pro-life” movement was always those things.
Here to illustrate that transition from “I’m evil but you can’t prove it” to “Snidely Whiplash” is Marco Rubio, who told Stephanoupoulos on Sunday he preferred if rape victims kept their rapists’ babies.
"Moderate". That reinvention should be studied, if it indeed happens.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Mon Feb 8, 2016, 10:56 PM (0 replies)
Name that candidate now. Name that person now.
Hearing some rumblings that "we're in danger of losing the presidency". Seriously. I'm all ears. Who does it?
Trump? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. Guy's a carnival barker and a comedy act. Trust me; once reason sets in, if he wins the primary, it's barely. He doesn't want to be president, he wants to be dictator. That's something he and his idiot supporters don't seem to get.
Carson? Good as done. The guy's too whacked out on Jesus Juice to be taken seriously.
Cruz? LGBTQI-hating Christo-Fascists aren't fashionable on young voters with a brain stem. Or GenX voters. Or GenY voters. The only people who would vote for this guy are white, male and in the autumn of their lives.
Rubio? Not happening. You forget whatever the guy says five minutes after he says it.
Fiorina? Yeah, let's vote for politically expedient and facially repellent ex-CEOs who fire 30,000 workers while voting pay raises for themselves. Remember Mitten's quote of "I like firing people"? Think that times 30.
The point is that nobody from the GOP field can be sold or reinvented as a moderate like they did George Dubya. Even if they tried to, they couldn't. Mitt, already somewhat of a wingnut, had no choice but to cater to the TeaHadi nutjobs. He lost huge.
The days of an extremist (and when I say "extremist", I'm talking "embracing the opposite of everything that made this country politically and economically sound") garnering appeal on a national level are over. What works in localized politics doesn't play out to the big picture. Our population at large is no longer down with a Revelation-lovin' nutbar at the helm of the United States. You might not think the Bewsh years aren't in the American voter's minds . . . but they are.
No one wants to go back to that, and while they're not forthcoming about it, it's there. Make no mistake.
That's not to say "It's in the bag". Get out and vote to make it happen and crush these bastards with force.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Sun Feb 7, 2016, 09:44 AM (87 replies)