So, what should Americans be retraining for?

Great Debates
41

That is not true.

In a capitalistic economy, in a free market, (other than temporary dislocations) there is no shortage of jobs. The labor market will “clear” just as all markets clear with supply = demand.

Only outside interference/influences such as the government controlling wages, or the government flooding the labor market, etc. will there be unemployment. It is the same principle that likewise there are no shortages of consumer items unless the government interferes with price fixing or some other intervention. Left alone, there are no shortages in a free society.

42

Wall Street offers no redeeming qualities to the human race and would be better if it was wiped out.

43

It must seem that way, since you are obviously a fucking moron.

44

Before the institution of Keynesian intervention in the economy, there were more serious economic dislocations than what we are experiencing.

45

Oh snap. Checks forum - yup, the Great Debates Wow, calling someone a fucking moron is acceptable on here? I kinda figured as much. The rules on what constitutes a personal attack on the SDMB is as straightforward as Lombard Street or one of Hogwart’s mazes. Betcha if he calls you a fucking moron right back he’ll get a mod warning.

46

Anyone who has to sink to such a vulgar insult has obviously lost the argument.

The forum software on Straight Dope needs an easy way to report violations of the Rules like this.

47

The little red triangle on the upper right.

48

If that is indeed true then perhaps my disdain for the book was more… prophetic? *

Nut-uh. Not true. That has been said on here often and it is simply not true. What we have right now is an employer’s market. We have had employee’s markets in the past, where there were more job openings than applicants. It is possible to get back into an economy where we swing between one and the other - but for the last decade or more we have been in a continuous employer’s market which, if we stay the current course, will be a permanent state of affairs.

In fact, in the mid 1990s during the tech boom, there were complaints by corporations that it was an employee’s job market. Too many jobs chasing too few workers. The economy was doing just fine then: the employee’s market did not harm America. It won’t harm us to go back to that again.

Well said. It’s much better to charge into the world of re-training and come out thousands of dollars poorer or deeper in debt with a degree in an “emerging field” that is now totally oversaturated with applicants to the point where you are only 20% likely to get a job. That way if you’re one of the unlucky 80% you can be financially worse off than you were before - with no job! Isn’t that awesome!

But wait! If I am the student loan company you better believe I am going to hire a man like you. You’re the guy that tells the poor unemployed schmuck that his only hope is more education! There can’t possibly be other options, like, say, moving out of the country.

I am, however, a student of mathematics. When you have 5 people fighting for every job opening, 4 must go without. It amuses me at how hard you try to work around this, but really, the math always wins. 4 out of 5 unemployed people absolutely, positively must go without, no matter what they train in. That is the straight dope. 4 out of 5 unemployed will not beat the math. Not in this universe.

What must change is that there are fewer people around fighting for every 1 job.

All true. But you are arguing the idea that you should be more competitive to become one of the lucky 20%. This is a valid approach.

You still have not accepted the reality of what must happen to that other 80%.

What I am getting out of this is that when 5 people are competing for 1 job, 4 must go without. The math is unbeatable. You cannot circumvent it. You can only try to maneuver to become one of the lucky 20%.

Before we go any further with this, I must ask… have you ever played the game of musical chairs?

  • NOT. Seeing the writing on the wall is hardly the same as prophecy… sadly, lots of economists back during that time did not see the writing clearly bold-faced on the wall.
49

Thanks. :slight_smile: I just pushed it, and reported msmith537.

50

No, no, no. Wrong approach.

A tsunami would kill innocent New Yorkers, too. Why bring the water to them? Let them go to the water! It would be much better if the Wall Street bankers were reduced to jumping off of bridges like they did in the 1929 crash. Laser-guided karma, baby.

Unless you’re talking about an electoral tsunami of opposition to tax cuts for the rich. In which case this mega tidal wave may be on its way:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876558/ns/politics

It all depends on what you define as a ‘tsunami’ hitting Wall Street. :smiley:

51

Wishing death and distruction on a city of over 10 million people, most of which do not work in financial services, hardly constitutes an intelligent argument.
Is there even a debate here or just another **Le Jacquelope **and **Susanann **rant on the job market, outsourcing and immigration? In which case it will probably end up in The Pit anyway.

There are factual answers to the OP’s question. Just look at any of the “Top Growth Industries” that proliferate various magazines and web sites. Technology, engineering and health care seem to consistantly be up there. Although I’m sure the response will be “15 million people can’t all get jobs working in nursing homes” or something like that.
I guess they should do nothing. Don’t do any training.

Great! That goes into my Permenant Record File!

52

Before spending any money for a job training program find out what percentage of people who finish the program get the jobs they have trained for. Do not take the word of the training school. Get independent verification.

53

And that is why your response is so shallow. It militantly refuses to take into account the fact that with the level of unemployment we have, these fields are going to be saturated with qualified applicants. 4 out of 5 retrainees in these Top Growth Industries will be in a deeper hole than if they didn’t retrain for them. If you had any idea of the concept of mathematics you’d understand that.

No, the problem is that training alone - no matter what you train for will only land 80% of our unemployed in a deeper financial mess than they are in now.

I know this is too complex for the Dope forum but I’ll say it anyway: America’s unemployed workers need more than just training. They need a program to allow them to look for work elsewhere in other countries. They’ll earn more out there than they will sitting on our streets panhandling. Well, marginally more, considering the pay differential. But again, having a job in China or India beats panhandling anywhere.

Bah. That just went over a whole lot of people’s heads. I think you’ve pretty much stopped processing anything beyond “he said training won’t work! EXERMINATE!!! skip he said training won’t work! EXTERMINATE!!!skip”

54

The problem is even worse than that: in this economy you need to know what the job market will be 2 years from now, which is the bare minimal time you’ll need for any meaningful retraining. Again, few want to address this. Always assume that any given “Top Growth” industry will become heavily impacted in 2 years. 4 tops.

55

The economy is likely to improve in two years. If a training school can verify a 90 percent placement rate now, it will probably get better in two years. I doubt that many if any training schools can verify a 90 percent placement ratio, however.

56

The job market is not just undergoing a normal fluctuation. The economy for corporations and for their profits, is booming. The stock market has doubled from when Obama took over. But the job market suffered terribly and it still is suffering.
It will not be recovering. Jobs are being created abroad by American corporations. If you accept that their prime directive is to increase profits. you must understand they will do everything they can to cut labor costs. They believe ,they owe America nothing. The jobs will not be coming back until our labor costs meet the world labor costs.
Perot told you what would happen. I figured he was right but i had no idea that it would happen that fast.
The jobs are gone and more will be going.

57

What are some sources you check to get independent verification on these sorts of things?

58

A good way to start is to do an internet search for the training school, and see what you get. Ask to talk to students who are about to graduate. By the time one is nearly finished with the course work of a school like that one will have a pretty accurate of how truthful the advertising is. The Better Business Bureau is a good place to look.

59

Some reporting is required depending on state or federal financial support, i.e. if students qualify for financial aid, most institutions have to report placement rates.

But there is no guarantee those numbers mean a damn either.

The goal of retraining is also not necessarily to help workers find better paying jobs, but any paying job. If their previous field is obsolete, than retraining for any viable occupation is an improvement.

The main issue is not retraining, but supporting growth industries that will absorb excessive unemployment. For the US, I think industries which have that potential are renewable power generation, at every level, from design to manufacturing to service and repair; robotics, especially development of consumer-level maintenance robots such as Roomba and drone delivery vehicles (instead of 2000 lb vehicles to deliver pizzas, how about 200 lb ones, either aerial or ground.);and higher education.

The US has one of the premier higher education systems in the world and already caters to a growing number of international students. While it is important for regions to develop their own systems, the US can still be a leader in this area. As the middle class continues to grow world-wide so will the demand for higher education. Instead of being the world’s policeman, the US could focus on being the world’s professor, not to cherry-pick and enable brain drain, but to educate students for their home country, especially for Africa and Latin America where demand is greater than supply.

Many cities already rely on being a ‘college town’ as the main driver for their local economy. I would say that is where our comparative advantage lies. The cultural environment of those towns and cities create a richer environment for students than most areas, especially in Africa and Latin America.

No one industry will provide the ‘magic’ fix, and no industry will scale up to the necessary size without significant government collaboration (which could be mostly regulatory, not financial, but most likely both.) Economic development with gov support is not new, and has been effective in many areas, particularly in Asia and in the US (easements for the railroads and utilities for example). Ideological restraints, not technological barriers, prevent us from following suit. The key issues of such policies are transparency and equity, but they have been shown to be effective and efficient.

Complaints that job training programs do not all have 90% placement rates (or even 50%) miss the point of those programs - that their graduates qualify for an existing occupation, not an obsolete one. Their goal is not to aim for full employment, but mitigate the damage from structural unemployment. They may lead to gluts in supply for certain jobs, but it is better than a glut in supply for non-existent jobs. I would rather be a well-trained, but unemployed auto mechanic than a carriage maker. When a recession ends, I know which will lead to greater opportunities.

60

It is tempting to extrapolate current trends indefinitely into the future, but it can be misleading. Ross Perot warned of “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving the United States if NAFTA was passed during the presidential campaign of 1992. During June of 1992 unemployment reached 7.8 percent.

Clinton supported NAFTA. It went into effect January 1, 1994. By then unemployment had declined to 6.6 percent. By December 2000 unemployment had declined to 3.9 percent. It had not been that low since the late 1960s.

http://www.p360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44&count=all

It is true that corporations are making record profits while most Americans are unemployed, or earn pay checks that buy less than they did when Clinton left office. This is a Democrat issue, but the Democrats will need to devise plausible, and workable solutions. No one will give them that issue.