- Overseas competition: After World War II, America had the advantage because Europe and the Far East were in ruins because of the war. So that gave us the advantage until the '70s when the Japanese, Germans, etc. started catching up, notably in the automobile industry. That trend has continued to the point now where most everything you buy (except perishable goods) comes from China these days. I'm shocked if I look at the label and see it was made in America.
- Automation: When was the last time you went into your bank to speak to a teller? For me it's been about six months at least. That sums things up in a nutshell. A lot of the jobs that existed in the '50s and '60s can now be done by machines. The more jobs for computers and robots means fewer jobs for humans. That's so easy to calculate you don't even need a calculator. Though I think Fox "News" ragged on Obama when he pointed out this simple, obvious fact in regards to ATMs.
- Population Growth: This one I think is the one no one really wants to talk about. Again it's really easy to calculate: more people equals more jobs needed. As the census keeps going up thanks to medical science keeping people alive longer (plus fewer really destructive wars and diseases--compare the "flu" of nowadays to the "flu" of 1918 for instance) there are more people who need jobs. Yet thanks to the other two factors there are fewer jobs available, especially good jobs that can pay a decent wage and have good benefits. The obvious solution would be a "Final Solution"; like say kill everyone over 60 (or 30 like "Logan's Run"). Not even dangerous morons like Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin or Ron Paul have gone that far--yet. But as pressure keeps building with more people and fewer good jobs, would it be any surprise if someone started to advocate that? See, there's a plot for a dystopian novel right there, just rip off "Logan's Run"! (And that Star Trek: The Next Generation where David Ogden Stiers was some alien dude from a planet where they killed everyone on their 60th birthday.)
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Back to the Future
Now that it's officially 2012, that means election year will swing into high gear. Though of course it feels like this campaign has been going on for about two years now. Anyway, most every politician will be stumping about how we have to bring prosperity back. The elephant in the room that they won't talk about is that you can't really bring back the prosperity of the post-WWII era, or probably even the prosperity of the '90s. There are a few systematic factors that make this extremely difficult.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't see how our economy is going to turn around either, but one thing I wonder about lately is population growth. Whenever I go to the store, I don't see as many babies/toddlers as I used to. It makes me wonder if people are having less children because they can't afford them.
ReplyDeleteWell, I was in a good mood until reading this. I didn't realize dystopia was just around the corner.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I think doesn't get accounted for in your analysis, though, is that instead of "losing" jobs, often times we change jobs. ATMs that replace tellers require people to build and maintain ATMs. Cars made in Japan must be shipped here and transported to the car lots, where people have to sell them. So the guy who in 1960 would have worked an assembly line and been married to a bank teller has kids who work as car importers and are married to computer programmers.
It's not perfect, of course, but our unemployment rate has more or less constant -- 5-7% over the years, with some blips --
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
since 1950 or so.
I think the real problem is that of income mobility. Creating jobs isn't a problem. Creating jobs that lead to better jobs and give people real lifts up is. We have a terrible, terrible society when it comes to understanding numbers, and understanding numbers is what's necessary to explain why flat taxes punish the poor at the expense of the rich.
We also have a terrible, terrible society when it comes to understanding the idea of group benefits, such as roads and schools, vs. individual benefits. I haven't got the time right now, but if I could check it, I'd be willing to bet that the average amount of benefits I get from the government...
... roads that are paved, cops that keep me from getting stabbed in the grocery store parking lot, food that isn't poisoned by salmonella, university education supported by state tax dollars...
...exceeds what a "welfare recipient" gets, especially if you factor in the fact that the richer you are, the more you benefit from government programs.
The poor and the rich alike are protected, for example, by the FDIC. But the poor have less to lose than the rich; my pathetic bank account is protected only to its extent, while Mitt Romney's is protected to a far greater extent. He's getting the same, or better, government-provided insurance coverage that I am, but paying less for it dollar-for-dollar.
Mitt Romney flies more than I do; ergo, he gets more from federally-mandated deregulation (but pays more in federally-mandated airline taxes, which are reduced by airlines who charge for luggage carryons, because there's no taxes on those, so when the government tries to end that program, remember, they're trying to stop the airlines from dodging taxes) but Mitt also gets the benefit of the FAA far more than I do; I don't really care if the FAA exists at all, as I have only flown about five times in my life and don't expect to fly anytime soon.
People have trouble understanding that kind of stuff, though, and then support government programs that make it harder to move up in mobility and punish the poor, because they don't realize that it is virtually impossible to punish the rich.
We'll be fine, as a society, provided that we as a society decide to start actually thinking.
I've got half a dozen similarity worded posts sitting in my drafts folder that will probably be deleted soon. I think America's corporations are all suffering from the tradegy of the commons. Manufacturing jobs are all but gone - and more and more white collar jobs are going away now to. The dark side of the Internet isn't porn - it's that it enables competition in jobs that were always safe from outsourcing in the past. You should see the AP process here where I work. They got rid of a dozen employees and sent their jobs to India years ago. Then they did the same with all sorts of lower level accounting jobs.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a small issue with Briane's remark about job transfer instead of loss. Instead at working as a bank teller - the similarly qualified person is now working at Wendy's, making minimum wage. At least she can buy jeans at Wal Mart for $9 now.
Much food for thought here. We certainly can't recreate the conditions that caused previous prosperity, but we can be ready to catch the next great wave, be it alternative energy or something not yet taken seriously. I'm not ready to admit that America's moment in the sun is over.
ReplyDeleteI work in the human resources/human capital industry. There are a TON OF JOBS out there. But they can't fill them. And these are not slave-wage jobs we're talking about. These positions are $30-$60 and up per hour jobs that require highly skilled workers.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. We don't have enough highly skilled workers. You talk about manufacturing jobs that go overseas, and YES, that killed us. But a vast majority of those jobs would still be entry-level, low-skilled jobs.
I can't tell you how many companies need people who can operate certain kinds of machinery or technology, and they are desperate to find people. 70% of manufacturing CEOs said they can't fill their openings because people lack the education and skills they need. So there's a huge education/skills gap.
So what's the answer? Education. We need education to be more accessible to those who want to make more than $7 an hour at Wendy's. People with the desire and the aptitude to get their education to learn how to operate a sophisticated piece of equipment.
And as far as "tax breaks for the rich" I think you need to do some math. The Bush tax cuts actually helped more middle class wage earners than the rich. There's a big hullabaloo about billionaires not paying taxes and so forth. And those that were able to do so made up a fraction of a fraction of that 1%. Such a small amount of people.
And the RICH, the 1%? What about those bastards? Well, the 1% is really a big pyramid. You've got a ton more people at the bottom of the pyramid in that 1%. And who are these evil people? They are doctors, college chancellors, small business owners, dentists, optometrists, software engineers, public school administrators. Oh yeah, they need to be burned at the stake for being filthy rich!
And if you took every singly penny that the top 1% makes and is worth, you still could NOT pay our federal debt. If we taxed the wealthy at 100%, it still wouldn't fix our financial woes.
(Sorry, just trying to play Devil's Advocate since you have some obvious leaning Left comments in your post!)
I like a lot of the points that Jay brings up, particularly with education. I don't work in human resources but I do see a lot of openings from my desk at work that are high-paying, nice jobs but require extensive education and skills that most people don't have. I possess one of these jobs, but I've put in my time and education to do this. A lot of people have made incredibly poor choices with their education and don't want to take the steps necessary to get their lives together. However, I also agree with you in that the prosperity of thirty years ago is just never going to come back.
ReplyDeleteone day we will catch the next wave
ReplyDelete