Well, things are coming to a head-with the US Treasury announcement (that it will purchase US Treasury bonds with printed money)-we have a de facto dollar devaluation.
Germany and China (both huge exporters) are already screaming “unfair”.
But as I see it, this has to happen-unless the Chinese go on accumulating huge surpluses.
The europeans are concerned because they see China as redirecting a flood of exports to them.
So, ultimately, equilibrium must be restored.
That would be because of the recession. You said the last 10 years had rising unemployment when your own cite showed no such thing. Is it your position that the rising unemployment starting in 2008 was due to off-shoring/automation and not the recession?
Your WSJ cite covers all of GWB’s term, which ended in 2008, not 2007, which is when the current recession was fully raging. Even so, with cherry-picked stats that ended in a recession, job growth was 2.3%. Not great, perhaps, but still totally at odds with your contention that jobs are disappearing.
Your position is based on faulty facts.
Automation leads to greater productivity and in a closed system the benefits of that increased productivity gets spread around within the system and excess capacity is eventually absorbed and employed at the higher rates of production.
These days the automation leads to lost jobs here and new factories in China.
To some extent this is invtiable with open markets, but to the extent that there is market manipulation going on, there is more displacement going on than is warranted by open markets.
I find it very instructive that the Chinese are up in arms about the Quant easing that the fed engaged in recently.
Yes, we’re doing better than we were doing during teh great depression. I guess there’s a silbver lining in every cloud.
I believe it’s just the opposite: automation makes the American worker more productive, which offsets the lower wages of the Chinese worker, and keeps her cost effective. Even without that, however, you still haven’t explained why automation has all of a sudden become a detriment.
We are nowhere near the unemployment levels seen during the Depression. According to Le Jacquelope’s cite, today’s unemployment is roughly equal to 1982’s. The economy didn’t end then, either.
Nice spin move there.
The other part, which I pointed out and which you’re omitting here, is that the US population grew 7.7% during that period. Which means that America’s job growth was not keeping up with America’s population growth - which is exactly what I’ve been saying, over and over again.
And if those stats from the Wall Street Journal were cherry picked, what contradictory facts do you have?
I don’t need contradictory facts because your own cites contradict what you are saying. Care to retract the “anemic job growth” for the last 10 years?
Your comparison of jobs to population, while not meaningless, is a cruder stat than unemployment. Baby boomers are starting to retire which would lead to a lower worker/population ratio. As your cite shows, unemployment has been relatively flat for 60 years. The current unemployment rate is not unprecedented and is nowhere near Great Depression levels. You’ve based your off-shoring/automation rant on the axiom that jobs have slowly been declining, an axiom which is demonstrably false.
My cite doesn’t contradict anything.
Job growth was 2.3%. Population growth was 7.7%. Job growth was not keeping up with population growth for all 10 years. Do your math and say it oud: A N E M I C.
You don’t even have any stats on how many Boomers retired during that time. I’ve shown you a population growth of 7.7%. Why don’t you substantiate your baseless claim that the working class population growth was BELOW 2.3%, much less below 7.7%.
My cites don’t contradict me on anything. You, sir, are now stonewalling.
Oy. I will try one more time. From 2000 to 2007 unemployment was relatively flat (and very low, I might add). This totally contradicts your contention that job growth was anemic in those years. The WSJ article compares employment/population between 2001 (right at the end of a mini boom) to 2008 (the beginning of a raging recession). The drop in the employment/population ratio is easily explained by the recession and retiring baby boomers. There is no basis for blaming it on off-shoring/automation.
He doesn’t understand how percentages work, basically (or what terms like ‘job growth’ mean or imply), and he’s using apples to oranges stats that don’t say what he thinks they do. It’s a hopeless cause, Deeg…the guy just isn’t tracking on what you are saying. FWIW, you fought the good fight…
-XT
You keep asserting that the drop in the employment/population ratio is easily explained by the recession and retiring baby boomers without any supporting facts… except that there was in fact a recession - two, in fact. One that came along and stopped an already anemic/ jobless recovery (from the previous recession) in its tracks. Offshoring and automation, meanwhile, were running strong during this period. You have, in all your arguments, failed to identify any other force that was involved in causing this period of anemic job growth.
There’s a reason why the recoveries from 2001-2007 were called jobless. It was because job growth was not keeping up with population growth.
Do you, sir, have any supporting facts to show your claim that the number of retiring baby boomers exceeded the number of people entering the workforce? To country your assertion I can say, quite accurately, that a lot of baby boomers stayed in the workforce longer than age 62-65.
In fact, I have one fact that counters your claim that Baby Boomers were retiring before 2007: the first baby boomer received her first Social Security check in early 2008. Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, to be exact.
Your turn. Show us the data on all those retiring baby boomers from 2001-2007.
The funny part about all of this is that even the US Chamber of Commerce puts the loss of jobs due to offshoring at 3-4 million.
That’s their numbers.
“In 2004, Chamber head Tom Donohue made the case that outsourcing shouldn’t be a concern because only “two, maybe three million jobs, maybe four” would be lost.”
Now can you people imagine what a MINIMUM of 2 million jobs coming back to America would do to this recession? 3? 4? This is the US Chamber of Commerce’s estimate.
The EPI puts the estimate at jobs lost to offshoring at more than 5 million:
http://epi.3cdn.net/58f222c3caaded4953_r8m6iv1t8.pdf%20<http://epi.3cdn.net/58f222c3caaded4953_r8m6iv1t8.pdf
So, DEEG, there are your numbers.
Stop offshoring NOW and we bring back at LEAST 2 million jobs and as many as 5.6 million. Or do you oppose cutting our unemployment levels by 2-5 million jobs?
Who here wants to argue against cutting unemployment by 2-5 million?
Now let’s do a basic math question, shall we?
Hewlett-Packard, under Fiorina, dropped 30,000 jobs. They then hired people to do the same kind of work in China. Whirlpool recently shut down a plant and moved it to Mexico.
How in the world can you NOT count those jobs lost as jobs lost to foreign outsourcing? You have a solid chain of events - laying people off here and hiring people outside America to do the same work.
Saying that we’re not losing jobs to offshoring is nonsense. It’s idiocy. Not even the US Chamber of Commerce, a virulent defender of offshoring, is dumb enough to say that.
I absolutely LOVE this…
New readers who come to this thread will notice that defenders of offshoring keep saying that offshoring will bring us a new species of jobs for America but they’ll also notice that no one has been able to explain why these jobs have NOT appeared.
Every day we hear about what companies are hiring for and the top 10 or top 20 job-producing industries and what jobs are fast growing, fastest growing jobs, etc. Jobs coming back, and on and on. But yet the unemployment rate isn’t improving. Why? Because the jobs coming back are not anything nearly enough. Job growth has been lagging behind population growth for the last ten years, and it still is.
Why are there so many threads here on SD that advocate protectionism? Because the defenders of offshoring are failing to make a credible case. More and more people are coming to oppose offshoring. We’re seeing through the bullshit that is the pro-offshoring argument.
It’s getting harder and harder to defend offshoring because its failings are becoming more transparent.