With "official" unemployment up to 10.2% (that's U3 numbers) and another 8% of those that have either dropped off the rolls of UI or have taken part-time, temporary jobs after being unable to find fulltime work, tomorrow's Jobs Forum takes on unprecedented importance.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... mic-growth
The question is then;
What Types of Employment Policies Should be Discussed at the Jobs Forum?
Unemployment currently stands at 10.2 percent, and the outlook for employment is poor unless labor markets are given some type of boost. To explore the opportunities to provide the needed boost, the administration is holding a jobs forum to talk about “every possible avenue for job creation.”
What are those avenues for job creation? The federal government has two main policy tools at its disposable, government spending on goods and services and changes in taxes. This distinction is used to categorize the potential avenues for policy discussed below. In addition, the government can also hire labor directly, and that is included as a separate category.
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-new ... forum/274/
And from where will the money come to pay for THIS?
Jobs Forum 12/3/2009
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Jobs Forum 12/3/2009
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Worrisome Thoughts on the Way to the Jobs Summit
Most ideas for creating more jobs assume jobs will return when the economy recovers. So the immediate goal is to accelerate the process. A second stimulus would be helpful, especially directed at state governments that are now mounting an anti-stimulus package (tax increases, job cuts, service cuts) of over $200 billion this year and next. If the deficit hawks threaten to take flight, the administration should use the remaining TARP funds.
Other less expensive ideas include a new jobs tax credit for any firm creating net new jobs. Lending directed at small businesses, which are having a hard time getting credit but are responsible for most new jobs. A one-year payroll tax holiday on the first, say, $20,000 of income – which would quickly put money into peoples’ pockets and simultaneously make it cheaper for businesses to hire because they pay half the payroll tax. And a WPA style program that hires jobless workers directly to, say, insulate homes.
Most of this would be helpful. Together, they might take the official unemployment rate down a notch or two.
But here's the real worry. The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.
Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They’ve discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.
This means many Americans won’t be rehired unless they’re willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today's official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they've lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.
Yet reducing unemployment by cutting wages merely exchanges one problem for another. We'll get jobs back but have more people working for pay they consider inadequate, more working families at or near poverty, and widening inequality. The nation will also have a harder time restarting the economy because so many more Americans lack the money they need to buy all the goods and services the economy can produce.
So let's be clear: The goal isn’t just more jobs. It's more jobs with good wages. Which means the fix isn’t just temporary measures to accelerate a jobs recovery, but permanent new investments in the productivity of Americans.
What sort of investments? Big ones that span many years: early childhood education for every young child, excellent K-12, fully-funded public higher education, more generous aid for kids from middle-class and poor families to attend college, good health care, more basic R&D that's done here in the U.S., better and more efficient public transit like light rail, a power grid that's up to the task, and so on.
Without these sorts of productivity-enhancing investments, a steadily increasing number of Americans will be priced out of competition in world economy. More and more Americans will face a Hobson's choice of no job or a job with lousy wages. It's already happening.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
Most ideas for creating more jobs assume jobs will return when the economy recovers. So the immediate goal is to accelerate the process. A second stimulus would be helpful, especially directed at state governments that are now mounting an anti-stimulus package (tax increases, job cuts, service cuts) of over $200 billion this year and next. If the deficit hawks threaten to take flight, the administration should use the remaining TARP funds.
Other less expensive ideas include a new jobs tax credit for any firm creating net new jobs. Lending directed at small businesses, which are having a hard time getting credit but are responsible for most new jobs. A one-year payroll tax holiday on the first, say, $20,000 of income – which would quickly put money into peoples’ pockets and simultaneously make it cheaper for businesses to hire because they pay half the payroll tax. And a WPA style program that hires jobless workers directly to, say, insulate homes.
Most of this would be helpful. Together, they might take the official unemployment rate down a notch or two.
But here's the real worry. The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.
Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They’ve discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.
This means many Americans won’t be rehired unless they’re willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today's official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they've lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.
Yet reducing unemployment by cutting wages merely exchanges one problem for another. We'll get jobs back but have more people working for pay they consider inadequate, more working families at or near poverty, and widening inequality. The nation will also have a harder time restarting the economy because so many more Americans lack the money they need to buy all the goods and services the economy can produce.
So let's be clear: The goal isn’t just more jobs. It's more jobs with good wages. Which means the fix isn’t just temporary measures to accelerate a jobs recovery, but permanent new investments in the productivity of Americans.
What sort of investments? Big ones that span many years: early childhood education for every young child, excellent K-12, fully-funded public higher education, more generous aid for kids from middle-class and poor families to attend college, good health care, more basic R&D that's done here in the U.S., better and more efficient public transit like light rail, a power grid that's up to the task, and so on.
Without these sorts of productivity-enhancing investments, a steadily increasing number of Americans will be priced out of competition in world economy. More and more Americans will face a Hobson's choice of no job or a job with lousy wages. It's already happening.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
The Jobs Imperative
Here's Krugman's offering...
NYT Op Ed - November 29, 2009
If you’re looking for a job right now, your prospects are terrible. There are six times as many Americans seeking work as there are job openings, and the average duration of unemployment — the time the average job-seeker has spent looking for work — is more than six months, the highest level since the 1930s.
You might think, then, that doing something about the employment situation would be a top policy priority. But now that total financial collapse has been averted, all the urgency seems to have vanished from policy discussion, replaced by a strange passivity. There’s a pervasive sense in Washington that nothing more can or should be done, that we should just wait for the economic recovery to trickle down to workers.
This is wrong and unacceptable.
Yes, the recession is probably over in a technical sense, but that doesn’t mean that full employment is just around the corner. Historically, financial crises have typically been followed not just by severe recessions but by anemic recoveries; it’s usually years before unemployment declines to anything like normal levels. And all indications are that the aftermath of the latest financial crisis is following the usual script. The Federal Reserve, for example, expects unemployment, currently 10.2 percent, to stay above 8 percent — a number that would have been considered disastrous not long ago — until sometime in 2012.
And the damage from sustained high unemployment will last much longer. The long-term unemployed can lose their skills, and even when the economy recovers they tend to have difficulty finding a job, because they’re regarded as poor risks by potential employers. Meanwhile, students who graduate into a poor labor market start their careers at a huge disadvantage — and pay a price in lower earnings for their whole working lives. Failure to act on unemployment isn’t just cruel, it’s short-sighted.
Article continues here
NYT Op Ed - November 29, 2009
If you’re looking for a job right now, your prospects are terrible. There are six times as many Americans seeking work as there are job openings, and the average duration of unemployment — the time the average job-seeker has spent looking for work — is more than six months, the highest level since the 1930s.
You might think, then, that doing something about the employment situation would be a top policy priority. But now that total financial collapse has been averted, all the urgency seems to have vanished from policy discussion, replaced by a strange passivity. There’s a pervasive sense in Washington that nothing more can or should be done, that we should just wait for the economic recovery to trickle down to workers.
This is wrong and unacceptable.
Yes, the recession is probably over in a technical sense, but that doesn’t mean that full employment is just around the corner. Historically, financial crises have typically been followed not just by severe recessions but by anemic recoveries; it’s usually years before unemployment declines to anything like normal levels. And all indications are that the aftermath of the latest financial crisis is following the usual script. The Federal Reserve, for example, expects unemployment, currently 10.2 percent, to stay above 8 percent — a number that would have been considered disastrous not long ago — until sometime in 2012.
And the damage from sustained high unemployment will last much longer. The long-term unemployed can lose their skills, and even when the economy recovers they tend to have difficulty finding a job, because they’re regarded as poor risks by potential employers. Meanwhile, students who graduate into a poor labor market start their careers at a huge disadvantage — and pay a price in lower earnings for their whole working lives. Failure to act on unemployment isn’t just cruel, it’s short-sighted.
Article continues here
Robert Reich has finely tuned his analysis to state what is plainly staring us in the face. What kind of jobs and income can we look forward to?
Another concept in employment - 'home shoring' - and I think I posted an article here a few weeks ago - is interesting. Working at home and on the phone in a customer service sector, although wages are lower, make up for some of the discrepancy in earnings through savings on transportation, clothing, childcare, good food, quality of life issues, and so on. This brings some of those off-shore jobs back 'home'.
If we can be creative, all change does not have to bring us to our knees vis a vis the 'new economic' realities. We desperately need new productivity, commitment to education and new infrastructure. One that 'works' for Americans.
Good thread, PW.
Another concept in employment - 'home shoring' - and I think I posted an article here a few weeks ago - is interesting. Working at home and on the phone in a customer service sector, although wages are lower, make up for some of the discrepancy in earnings through savings on transportation, clothing, childcare, good food, quality of life issues, and so on. This brings some of those off-shore jobs back 'home'.
If we can be creative, all change does not have to bring us to our knees vis a vis the 'new economic' realities. We desperately need new productivity, commitment to education and new infrastructure. One that 'works' for Americans.
Good thread, PW.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Thanks, Linn. I am more into talking solutions right now than partisanship. We had enough last Fall to last me a couple years, anyway.
A little more of this would help too! I have nothing against companies that do this getting a tax break.
Delta to close call centers, bring jobs back to the U.S.
Atlanta Business Chronicle - by J. Scott Trubey Staff Writer
Delta Air Lines Inc. will shutter call centers in Montreal and London next year, and move some of those jobs back to the United States in a measure to improve efficiency, airline officials confirmed Monday.
The closures are part of an alignment of call centers among SkyTeam members Delta and Air France-KLM Group.
It is not yet clear where in the U.S. the call agents will be housed or the exact number of jobs to return stateside, Delta spokeswoman Susan Chana Elliott said. All jobs returning to the U.S. will be for French-speaking agents, and will likely result in new job openings. Delta said affected employees would be offered other positions within the airline, severance packages or employment counseling.
The move will affect 142 jobs at its Montreal center and 187 positions in its London reservation offices. The Montreal facility will closed Aug. 31, 2010, while the London center will close in the fourth quarter of 2010.
With the closing of the London office, joint venture partner Air France-KLM will assume responsibilities for customer calls in Europe. Under the plan, Delta will handle calls for joint venture customers in the United States and Canada.
No other Delta call centers will be affected by the moves, Elliott said.
Atlanta-based Delta (NYSE: DAL) is the world’s largest airline.
In April, Delta stopped routing U.S. calls to a call center in India citing customer complaints.
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/ ... =printable
A little more of this would help too! I have nothing against companies that do this getting a tax break.
Delta to close call centers, bring jobs back to the U.S.
Atlanta Business Chronicle - by J. Scott Trubey Staff Writer
Delta Air Lines Inc. will shutter call centers in Montreal and London next year, and move some of those jobs back to the United States in a measure to improve efficiency, airline officials confirmed Monday.
The closures are part of an alignment of call centers among SkyTeam members Delta and Air France-KLM Group.
It is not yet clear where in the U.S. the call agents will be housed or the exact number of jobs to return stateside, Delta spokeswoman Susan Chana Elliott said. All jobs returning to the U.S. will be for French-speaking agents, and will likely result in new job openings. Delta said affected employees would be offered other positions within the airline, severance packages or employment counseling.
The move will affect 142 jobs at its Montreal center and 187 positions in its London reservation offices. The Montreal facility will closed Aug. 31, 2010, while the London center will close in the fourth quarter of 2010.
With the closing of the London office, joint venture partner Air France-KLM will assume responsibilities for customer calls in Europe. Under the plan, Delta will handle calls for joint venture customers in the United States and Canada.
No other Delta call centers will be affected by the moves, Elliott said.
Atlanta-based Delta (NYSE: DAL) is the world’s largest airline.
In April, Delta stopped routing U.S. calls to a call center in India citing customer complaints.
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/ ... =printable
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Little Tikes to bring jobs back to U.S.
November 15, 2009
by Laura Freeman
Reporter
Hudson -- Now that the company is committed to staying in town, Little Tikes may lead the way in a trend of returning jobs from overseas to the United States, according to its general manager.
Isaac Larian, president of Little Tikes' parent company MGA Entertainment, announced Oct. 20 that the toy manufacturer will stay in Hudson. That's good news, said Tom Richmond, general manager of Little Tikes, especially since the decision means more local jobs.
The company "won't have any trouble" adding 66 employees to the 395 working at the Hudson plant, which would meet requirements established in tax break agreements with the city and state, he said.
"We're going to create jobs in America," Richmond said.
"The public looks for 'made in America' on the product," he said.
Some of those new jobs will come from China. The company will first focus on promoting from within, and then hire from the community to fill the 66 new positions, Richmond said.
"We're bringing jobs back from the Orient," he said. "We have better control [here]."
Richmond said the cost dynamics of making products has changed, and it is now cheaper to build products in the United States because costs have gone up in China.
He sees other companies following the trend to make products in America, he added.
The announcement by Larian that Little Tikes is staying came with little fanfare.
Richmond described the Little Tikes organization as "not flashy," which is why its officials opted for a low-key announcement of its intentions to say in Hudson and expand its operations through local and state grants and incentives.
Richmond said the company is working with the state to give something back, such as producing plastic products, like trash and recycling containers, that can be used by local communities.
Little Tikes has committed to investing $5.8 million in machinery, equipment and new technology at its Hudson site, according to agreements with the city and state.
The city and state have provided $300,000 each in a Rapid Outreach grant for machinery and equipment upgrades.
They also will provide job creation tax credits of 50 percent of new city and state payroll taxes for seven years if Little Tikes adds 66 new jobs in three years and remains in Hudson for 14 years, Richard confirmed.
"Hudson is an ideally located solution for the company in a logistics sense," Richmond said. "We have long-standing roots, long-term employees with half of management with the company longer than 15 years, and we have a very good community partnership."
Little Tikes, founded in 1970, broke ground on Barlow Road in 1983 and at its height employed 2,000 people. It was purchased by MGA Entertainment in November 2006.
More information is available at http://www.littletikes.com.
http://www.hudsonhubtimes.com/news/article/4709904
November 15, 2009
by Laura Freeman
Reporter
Hudson -- Now that the company is committed to staying in town, Little Tikes may lead the way in a trend of returning jobs from overseas to the United States, according to its general manager.
Isaac Larian, president of Little Tikes' parent company MGA Entertainment, announced Oct. 20 that the toy manufacturer will stay in Hudson. That's good news, said Tom Richmond, general manager of Little Tikes, especially since the decision means more local jobs.
The company "won't have any trouble" adding 66 employees to the 395 working at the Hudson plant, which would meet requirements established in tax break agreements with the city and state, he said.
"We're going to create jobs in America," Richmond said.
"The public looks for 'made in America' on the product," he said.
Some of those new jobs will come from China. The company will first focus on promoting from within, and then hire from the community to fill the 66 new positions, Richmond said.
"We're bringing jobs back from the Orient," he said. "We have better control [here]."
Richmond said the cost dynamics of making products has changed, and it is now cheaper to build products in the United States because costs have gone up in China.
He sees other companies following the trend to make products in America, he added.
The announcement by Larian that Little Tikes is staying came with little fanfare.
Richmond described the Little Tikes organization as "not flashy," which is why its officials opted for a low-key announcement of its intentions to say in Hudson and expand its operations through local and state grants and incentives.
Richmond said the company is working with the state to give something back, such as producing plastic products, like trash and recycling containers, that can be used by local communities.
Little Tikes has committed to investing $5.8 million in machinery, equipment and new technology at its Hudson site, according to agreements with the city and state.
The city and state have provided $300,000 each in a Rapid Outreach grant for machinery and equipment upgrades.
They also will provide job creation tax credits of 50 percent of new city and state payroll taxes for seven years if Little Tikes adds 66 new jobs in three years and remains in Hudson for 14 years, Richard confirmed.
"Hudson is an ideally located solution for the company in a logistics sense," Richmond said. "We have long-standing roots, long-term employees with half of management with the company longer than 15 years, and we have a very good community partnership."
Little Tikes, founded in 1970, broke ground on Barlow Road in 1983 and at its height employed 2,000 people. It was purchased by MGA Entertainment in November 2006.
More information is available at http://www.littletikes.com.
http://www.hudsonhubtimes.com/news/article/4709904
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Outstanding article here. This gal is right-on. We need to create jobs that will stay and provide a family a living wage.
What's Missing From Obama's "Jobs Summit"? Effectively creating jobs means reestablishing a sense of shared responsibility in America's economic policies.
On Thursday, the country's leading CEOs, economists, and a few labor leaders will travel to the White House to discuss a national unemployment rate that has broken into the double digits for the first time since the Reagan era.
That the president is singling out job creation is a positive step. The challenge is for the "jobs summit" to go beyond short-term strategies designed only to ease current economic woes and help elected officials in next year's Congressional races. Instead, it must look for solutions that deal with structural problems in the way we manage the American economy.
continues:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-b-dea ... 77576.html
What's Missing From Obama's "Jobs Summit"? Effectively creating jobs means reestablishing a sense of shared responsibility in America's economic policies.
On Thursday, the country's leading CEOs, economists, and a few labor leaders will travel to the White House to discuss a national unemployment rate that has broken into the double digits for the first time since the Reagan era.
That the president is singling out job creation is a positive step. The challenge is for the "jobs summit" to go beyond short-term strategies designed only to ease current economic woes and help elected officials in next year's Congressional races. Instead, it must look for solutions that deal with structural problems in the way we manage the American economy.
continues:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-b-dea ... 77576.html
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Let's hope they have some creative, original ideas tomorrow!:eek:
The squid, Goldman Sux, has spoken...
Goldman Sachs 2011 forecast would be an absolute disaster for Dems
This would be New Normal with extreme prejudice. Bad for Democratic incumbents in the 2010 congressional midterms, but it should make the White House political team nervous as well for 2012. If Goldman Sachs is right, of course. Here is the firm’s 2011 forecast:
The key features of our 2011 outlook: (1) a strengthening in growth from 2.1% on average in 2010 to 2.4% in 2011, with real GDP rising at an above-potential 3½% pace in late 2011; (2) a peaking in unemployment in mid-2011 at about 10¾%; (3) extremely low inflation – close to zero on a core basis during 2011; and (4) a continuation of the Fed’s (near) zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) throughout 2011.
That said we see risks that could upset these markets. On the one hand, we might be underestimating the vigor of the economic recovery, and therefore the pressures for Fed tightening. In addition, surging asset prices and worries about a “bubble” could prompt Fed officials to tighten before such a move seems warranted on real-economy grounds. On the other hand, the economy (and the markets) could struggle under the weight of credit restraint for small businesses, weakness in commercial real estate markets, or fiscal tightening, especially by state and local governments.
The implications? I hardly know where to begin: a) with unemployment rising all next year, a GOP blowout in 2010; b) certainly more job creation packages; c) no capandtrade; d) increased anti-Wall Street/Fed sentiment; e) third party prez candidate in 2012; an Obama challenger in 2012 (Dean?). But who really knows. This would be like a technological singularity where seeing beyond the event is pretty much impossible. Such a Long Recession (essentially) would be so contrary to American expecatations — such a slow-mo, psychological shock — that it would be a full-out system perturbation equivalent to 9-11 or the Iraq War.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokou ... -for-dems/
The squid, Goldman Sux, has spoken...
Goldman Sachs 2011 forecast would be an absolute disaster for Dems
This would be New Normal with extreme prejudice. Bad for Democratic incumbents in the 2010 congressional midterms, but it should make the White House political team nervous as well for 2012. If Goldman Sachs is right, of course. Here is the firm’s 2011 forecast:
The key features of our 2011 outlook: (1) a strengthening in growth from 2.1% on average in 2010 to 2.4% in 2011, with real GDP rising at an above-potential 3½% pace in late 2011; (2) a peaking in unemployment in mid-2011 at about 10¾%; (3) extremely low inflation – close to zero on a core basis during 2011; and (4) a continuation of the Fed’s (near) zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) throughout 2011.
That said we see risks that could upset these markets. On the one hand, we might be underestimating the vigor of the economic recovery, and therefore the pressures for Fed tightening. In addition, surging asset prices and worries about a “bubble” could prompt Fed officials to tighten before such a move seems warranted on real-economy grounds. On the other hand, the economy (and the markets) could struggle under the weight of credit restraint for small businesses, weakness in commercial real estate markets, or fiscal tightening, especially by state and local governments.
The implications? I hardly know where to begin: a) with unemployment rising all next year, a GOP blowout in 2010; b) certainly more job creation packages; c) no capandtrade; d) increased anti-Wall Street/Fed sentiment; e) third party prez candidate in 2012; an Obama challenger in 2012 (Dean?). But who really knows. This would be like a technological singularity where seeing beyond the event is pretty much impossible. Such a Long Recession (essentially) would be so contrary to American expecatations — such a slow-mo, psychological shock — that it would be a full-out system perturbation equivalent to 9-11 or the Iraq War.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokou ... -for-dems/
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
Many years ago I started working from home and I loved it - no more driving and fighting traffic every day. Not everyone can work from home, for any number of reasons.
After NAFTA was passed, there was a massive move of jobs to overseas area to cut overhead costs and cheaper labor. Now I realize many will become upset, but in some ways I blame unions for the loss of a lot of physical work jobs. Some years ago I wrote about a young man - school drop out - that went to work in a union job in the early 1970s). In two months his wages were greater than: police department officers - who had training and higher education; fire department people - who had higher education; teachers - who had college degrees; office workers - bookkeepers - etc. - non union places; etc. Today that job - the young man had - has moved overseas for cheaper labor. Over the years other businesses have also gone overseas - some union, some not - to cut overhead costs - labor mainly. Far too many CEOs getting ludicrously high pay - who cut jobs so they get more pay - that too has caused problems.
What can be done right now? With winter coming on - jobs are not going to be as easy to create. There are many infrastructures that need repair work - but that requires manual labor, not sitting at a desk job.
Bringing jobs home from overseas would be helpful - but where will they be located? The buildings have long been abandoned, sold, torn down so new ones will be required as well as equipment, etc.
After NAFTA was passed, there was a massive move of jobs to overseas area to cut overhead costs and cheaper labor. Now I realize many will become upset, but in some ways I blame unions for the loss of a lot of physical work jobs. Some years ago I wrote about a young man - school drop out - that went to work in a union job in the early 1970s). In two months his wages were greater than: police department officers - who had training and higher education; fire department people - who had higher education; teachers - who had college degrees; office workers - bookkeepers - etc. - non union places; etc. Today that job - the young man had - has moved overseas for cheaper labor. Over the years other businesses have also gone overseas - some union, some not - to cut overhead costs - labor mainly. Far too many CEOs getting ludicrously high pay - who cut jobs so they get more pay - that too has caused problems.
What can be done right now? With winter coming on - jobs are not going to be as easy to create. There are many infrastructures that need repair work - but that requires manual labor, not sitting at a desk job.
Bringing jobs home from overseas would be helpful - but where will they be located? The buildings have long been abandoned, sold, torn down so new ones will be required as well as equipment, etc.
-
Cynthia Lynn
- Pirate
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: 06-12-2001 02:00 AM
Cherry Kelly wrote: Many years ago I started working from home and I loved it - no more driving and fighting traffic every day. Not everyone can work from home, for any number of reasons.
After NAFTA was passed, there was a massive move of jobs to overseas area to cut overhead costs and cheaper labor. Now I realize many will become upset, but in some ways I blame unions for the loss of a lot of physical work jobs. Some years ago I wrote about a young man - school drop out - that went to work in a union job in the early 1970s). In two months his wages were greater than: police department officers - who had training and higher education; fire department people - who had higher education; teachers - who had college degrees; office workers - bookkeepers - etc. - non union places; etc. Today that job - the young man had - has moved overseas for cheaper labor. Over the years other businesses have also gone overseas - some union, some not - to cut overhead costs - labor mainly. Far too many CEOs getting ludicrously high pay - who cut jobs so they get more pay - that too has caused problems.
What can be done right now? With winter coming on - jobs are not going to be as easy to create. There are many infrastructures that need repair work - but that requires manual labor, not sitting at a desk job.
Bringing jobs home from overseas would be helpful - but where will they be located? The buildings have long been abandoned, sold, torn down so new ones will be required as well as equipment, etc.
Perhaps you would prefer that blue collar workers (or "physical work jobs" workers as you put it) be paid slave wages?
No. I'm certain you really don't want to see that in America (although slave labor does exist here... but that's another subject).
Well, without some kind of organization, that's exactly where the "physical work jobs" laborers will find themselves in a few years... working for slave wages.
I have always supported unions and will continue to do so despite the problems they have experienced.
Frankly, I don't want to live in a third-world country.
You know, I was a public high school teacher in my hometown for many years, and I never did feel any resentment toward my students who graduated and went to work at our local paper mill.
After a few years, some of those students DID make more money than I.
So what.
I had been in that mill and knew how hot and noisy and dangerous the work was. Those people earned the money they made.
But, alas, to make a long story short, our paper mill was shut down by corporate headquarters during the 2008 Christmas season.
Nice, huh?
And I guarantee it wasn't the union workers and their "living wages" that caused the multinational paper company to make that decision concerning our paper mill.
It was corporate greed.
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
Cynthia - Of course I do not want to see "slave wages" but how about wages in keeping with other (similar) jobs? Why should Jane Doe get paid $20 hr to answer phones at a company of 200 because its union, when Jane Smith gets paid $12 hr for doing the same job at a non-union company of 200? In some ways unions are good as they did a very good job in creating safe working places, conditions, etc. Now these unions have become out of control in their own 'corporate' greed.
And yes I belonged to some unions over the years in work related situations.
====
We need more jobs returned TO the USA in every state, but especially in those with the highest unemployment rates.
And yes I belonged to some unions over the years in work related situations.
====
We need more jobs returned TO the USA in every state, but especially in those with the highest unemployment rates.
-
Cynthia Lynn
- Pirate
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: 06-12-2001 02:00 AM
Cherry Kelly wrote:
{snip}
Now these unions have become out of control in their own 'corporate' greed.
{snip}
Oh, Dear.
You don't really believe that, do you?
----------
The Decline of Union Power
From U.S. Department of State, About.com Guest
http://economics.about.com/od/laborinam ... ecline.htm
"...While more than one-third of employed people belonged to unions in 1945, union membership fell to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979 and to 13.9 percent in 1998..."
{snip}
"...court decisions and National Labor Relations Board rulings allowing workers to withhold the portion of their union dues used to back, or oppose, political candidates, undercut unions' influence.
Management, feeling the heat of foreign and domestic competition, is today less willing to accede to union demands for higher wages and benefits than in earlier decades. It also is much more aggressive about fighting unions' attempts to organize workers. Strikes were infrequent in the 1980s and 1990s, as employers became more willing to hire strikebreakers when unions walk out and to keep them on the job when the strike was over. (They were emboldened in that stance when President Ronald Reagan in 1981 fired illegally striking air traffic controllers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration.)"
{snip}
This article is adapted from the book "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr and has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.
----------
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/opini ... ?_r=2&h...
State of the Unions
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
December 24, 2007
Once upon a time, back when America had a strong middle class, it also had a strong union movement.
These two facts were connected. Unions negotiated good wages and benefits for their workers, gains that often ended up being matched even by nonunion employers. They also provided an important counterbalance to the political influence of corporations and the economic elite.
Today, however, the American union movement is a shadow of its former self, except among government workers. In 1973, almost a quarter of private-sector employees were union members, but last year the figure was down to a mere 7.4 percent.
{snip}
It’s often assumed that the U.S. labor movement died a natural death, that it was made obsolete by globalization and technological change. But what really happened is that beginning in the 1970s, corporate America, which had previously had a largely cooperative relationship with unions, in effect declared war on organized labor.
Don’t take my word for it; read Business Week, which published an article in 2002 titled “How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay.” [http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 805095.htm]
The article explained that “over the past two decades, Corporate America has perfected its ability to fend off labor groups.” It then described the tactics — some legal, some illegal, all involving a healthy dose of intimidation — that Wal-Mart and other giant firms use to block organizing drives.
These hardball tactics have been enabled by a political environment that has been deeply hostile to organized labor, both because politicians favored employers’ interests and because conservatives sought to weaken the Democratic Party. “We’re going to crush labor as a political entity,” Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, once declared.
{snip}
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
----------
Taft–Hartley Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act
-----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Union ... _world.svg
-------
Doesn't the smell of the absolute crap you spew ever bother you?Cherry Kelly wrote: Now these unions have become out of control in their own 'corporate' greed.
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact: