Jobless Recovery?

[JPace]

We keep losing living wage jobs here as they are
being sent overseas and unlikely to ever return.
Will the job losses eventually effect the economic
recovery or are growing numbers of unemployed people
irrelevant to the process?

Also how do other advanced nations discourage their
big businesses from abandoning the local workforce
in favor of cheaper labor in third world nations?

Is it possible for us to keep our high standard of
living while at the same time third world nations
are improving theirs? Seems that as they are getting
ahead we are falling behind.

[LuminousX]

1. Third World

right now, our only hope is that some other industrial country finds our educated (oops, I forgot, we've screwed over the school system) workforce willing to work for low wages attractive enough to outsource jobs to us.

[nedlogg]

2. What is the point of a jobless recovery?

Someone make me understand what good an economic recovery is without jobs and I mean real jobs that pay?

Who benefits other than the Cheap Labor Conservatives! :puke:

[MUAD_DIB]

4. A jobless recovery is just a neocon's way

of feeling good about the bad economy.

They put their blinders on and pretend everything is all well and good and that there's no trouble in the world.

...that is until it (downsizing) happens to them, then it is all the fault of Bill Clinton's penis.

[LoneStarLiberal]

3. The Conventional Thinking...

The conventional economic thought on what is going on right now is that we are in the midst of a structural adjustment of our economy, including our job market. Many of the IT jobs that are being off-shored to places like India and Russia will probably not be coming back. This is because corporation can find cheaper labor overseas thus allowing the same corporations to increase their profits and, in the cases of those that are publically traded (NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, etc.), make their stock more attractive to both institutional and individual investors.

Having said that, my critique of the conventional economic thought is that what we are experiencing right now is a revival of hyper-capitalism under a Republican administration that is, at the best, only slightly different from the corporate world it coddles and lavishes with government largess. Our current administration has once more shown its corporate stripes when they intervened in several state legislatures to squelch legislation that would have fined or otherwise punished companies operating in certain states who off-shored work at the expense of American jobs. Republicans are supposed to be for states' rights, right? Wrong. Republicans are for Republican supporters, i.e. corporations and wealthy individuals, states' rights, Christian values, and fiscal conservatism be damned.

Off-shoring allows their backers to boost their profits, make more money for themselves, and to make more money for both wealthy individuals and for Republican political figures by virtue of improving their stock portfolio. They are making more money and increasing the value of their stock in the same way that the tycoons of the Gilded Age made their money...at the expense of the American worker.

Class warfare? You bet your ass it's class warfare! When is a Democratic candidate going to call these oligarchs on their rhetoric-baiting? Stand up to them and show the people of this country who are either out of work or in daily danger of being downsized or off-shored what these 21st century Robber Barons we call Republicans believe in most: Crass corporatism, not the myth of compassionate conservatism.

[Drifter]

5. We have been in a ...

recoverless recovery for the past 2 years.

Cheers
Drifter

[JPace]

6. Permanent rat race dropouts......

I have been thinking about these disappearing jobs and
no one seems to know what will happen in the future to
people who can no longer make a living. I wonder if one
of the solutions will be a return to simplicity for many.
If our country offered medical coverage for all its
citizens there could be many who would choose to return
to living off the land like small farmers did a century
ago. Small plots of land used for producing their own
food and trading or working part time for cash enough
to cover taxes and goods that cannot be produced by ones
own means. Could it be possible that this possibility
would absorb some of the excess number of people looking
for too few jobs or are there problems with this theory?

[Code_Name_D]

7. Technical and social regression.

It depends on what you mean by "problems?" Will the system restructure itself to be functional, or will it restructure itself to be a moral system?

Economics, like many things, has certain natural qualities, and natural forces have a way producing solutions that we humans may not agree with.

For example, let's say we have a space ship with some 50 people on its way to Mars. But half way there, an accident happens and the ability of the space craft's ability to produce oxygen is reduced by 50%. A natural solution is simple, 50% of the crew will suffocate. But as each member dies off, more oxygen remains for the survivors. Once 25 members suffocate, the oxygen levels will level off, and the survivors will return to conciseness and continue living.

In large part, an economic system is little more than the means to distribute needed recourses to the living occupants. So long as people are alive, the economy will some how adapt itself to meet their needs. But like the space ship, the population and social structure will also to economic realities as well. Unfortunately, such adaptation is not going to be pleasant, a human die-off of American citizens is at this point, inescapable, with most of the casualties resulting from starvation, exposure, and desists that result from dehydration and poor nutrition. The only question that remains, is how large this die of will be. Will it be in the thousands, or hundreds of thousands?

In large part, the damage done to our economy had already been done. Jobs have been shipped out to cheap labor sources, while the fascists have keep control over capital and other tools of small business here at home. Our choices are few, and dire. Unfortunately, one of them is not self reliance. And this is so for a number of reasons.

1) Most people simply do not have the knowledge needed to take care of themselves.
2) An increasing volume of fertile land is now in the hands of corporations or privet hands. Much of it can no longer sustain human life. But we do not even have asses to it.
3) A simple life style can only sustain so many humans.
4) Political realities may not allow for such acts of "rebellion."

Now that is not to say that it isn't possible, but it would require a massive human die-off to accommodate. But I think that even the Republicans system is not so incompetent as that. Then again, the republicans system seems to produce die-offs a plenty on other countries. So perhaps I should knock on wood here.

Far more likely is the regression into a fuddle economy. This is the ultimate destiny of "trickle down" economics. All aspects of wealth will belong to the elite families, both fiscal and material nature. The "middle class" will become something of a governing class. They will straddle the two worlds of wealth and poverty to protect the upper classes, and to keep the lower classes in their place. But their recourses will still not be truly theirs, and their property would revert back to the ruling class the moment they lost favor. The lower class would be the working class, the modern equivalent of the peasants in the field. They won't even have the elision of recourses, but will only be given just enough to stay alive, and continue to work. Then there is the under-class. These are the persons who don't even have the fortunes to be peasants. In our modern world, they will most likely end up as drug dealers, thugs, thieves, assassins, prostitutes, or just end up dying of starvation in the streets, or occupying jail space.

Far fetched? Hardly. This wouldn't even be new to America. A similar economic stratum existed during the colonel period, and was one reason why the revolution was fought. And it rose to its height with the Aristocracy of the old South with the plantation owners, and lingered on even as late as the 60's. There was a resurgence of sorts during the 1920's. But the rising labor movement finally started to bring an end to this as workers united to fight for their own well being. And the beginning of the end took place with the onset of the new Deal. The civil rights movement became its swan song as black oppression within the system was finally seen for what it was, exploitation.

Indeed, a fuddle economy was the norm for much of American history, and has come to represent the worst aspects of the American experience, including slavery.

Rest assured, the new American Century shall not outlast the decade. Unless drastic changes are made to address the national debt, deficits, oil dependence, and growing US militarism, America will be hit by a perfect storm of consequences aligned against it. We will have a collapsing economy, growing civil unrest, a stretched military, and the world aligning against us, economically, and possibly even militarily. America is about to die in the same say as the old Soviet Union died, by being crushed under its own debt. The more military campaigns we engage in, the faster this will take place. And changes will NOT be made. Even Karsinach has not mentioned this problem. And their could vary well be NO solutions.

But thins will work out in the long term. The Republican order will over reach its power, and cave in on itself. Some say that this is already happening.

[JPace]

8. Hey Code...

that sounds really dismal, I am not doubting it as you
are rather astute on economics but I do hope that the
future will be brighter than that. If it does come about
I don't think that the "ruling wealthy class" will have
the ability to be safe in this modern world. If they
cannot be physically safe from those they exploit they
must come to see that the welfare of all is in the end
beneficial to their own existence. What a sad country
we will have become when opportunity for all is no
longer a fact.

[Code_Name_D]

11. This is a worse case senario.

As I said in the other post, America has been in a feudal system before, but have some how managed to muddle through. The picture I painted was a worst case scenario, in order to high light the changes that I see taking place. But it is also a grossly over-simplified scenario.

To some extent, the feudal system is already in place in much of America, especially in the deep south and in the inner city. So in that aspect, you don't have to count on imagination. There are folks living it right now. But a feudal system can be fought at the local level as well. Some places have already started.

In a consumer economy, the people control and hold their own capital. This in turn gives them power over their own situation, and forces the market place to cater to their needs. A feudal system, all of the capital is by definition, owned and held by the landlords, and thus control all the recourses, thus the markets serve only the wealthy few, ignoring the needs of the many who have no means to pay for them. And of course, their are many shades in between the two.

Living wages, and "Bread" or "Ithaca" dollars (alternative currencies) will mean the differences between ghosts towns and thriving metropolises. The key issue here is who controls the capital, and who holds the capital. Here is where the community declares that capital will be held by the citizen. Any one, who doesn’t respect that, can just move on to the next town. And there is nothing special about these systems. Any and every community can launch them in the mater of a few years with some moodiest financing. And as the US dollar runs into more and more trouble, I foresee that more and more communities will launch their own versions of alternative currencies, to first supplement the dollar, and if the worse case should happen, replace it.

Either way, capital still flows, or at least with in the jurisdiction of that currency, allowing the people within it to continue to barter for goods and services, and to sell their recourses and abilities. And that is all an economy is really about.

As things get worse, the forces for positive change grow stronger.

[jafap]

9. there was a C and H cartoon about the "fuddle" system

Calvin writes: In the Middle ages people lived in a futile system.
Hobbes: I believe that is a "feudal" system.
Calvin: And I thought this stuff was starting to make sense.

Perhaps we will return to extended families. People who cannot find jobs will have to move in with their parents or siblings. One major way for our system to produce die-offs is through crime. People who get desperate or angry about their poverty are likely to "burn down the mission". That will increase the population of our own local third world - the prison labor system.
Actually a simple lifestyle should increase the carrying capacity of the earth. I think Amish farms are very productive, but also that the Amish generally work their a$$es off.

[Code_Name_D]

10. What is a die-off

One major way for our system to produce die-offs is through crime. People who get desperate or angry about their poverty are likely to "burn down the mission". That will increase the population of our own local third world - the prison labor system.

I disagree with this, but only on grounds of the definition for a "die off." AS it empties, a die-off accrues when there is a signal even that results with massive casualties. Such as how bubonic pelage killed off 2/3rds of the human population in Europe. Famine, natural disaster, war, and drought are the forces that commonly result with human die-offs. And we have not seen these things for some time. Arguable not senses WWII.

The reason why I say crime don't produce "die-offs" is because not every one dies at once. And humans, even in an extremely crime ridden area are as likely to keep up with casualties with new births. This is called a mortality rate, or I have also seen it called as "average generation turn over" for much larger scale discussions. This is the average age of child birth vs average age of death by what ever means. But that doesn’t mean crime will not be bloody or brutal, just that it may not necessarily result with an appreciable reduction in human population.

There is also a counter-intuitive reality at work here as well. Poverty, strangely enough, seems to result with growing human populations. Scientists are quite sure why yet. Some blame instinct, as the would be parents melancholy pushes them to procreate over and over again. As it is said, sex is a vary cheep drug. The result is that a family will have a lot of young, to improve the odds that a few will survive to adulthood. Others claim poor education has a role (the dominant theory BTW), resulting in poor planing. Either way, its possible that when (or if) deep poverty sets in, that population may explode to make it worse.

That said, gangs have been known to "go to war."

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Jobless Recovery more to higher paying jobs

In general we are loosing higher paying jobs and not the low paying ones that are being shipped overseas. There is not a great shortage of minimum wage jobs nationally from what I've been told. One problem I've been told is that there are often lower wage jobs availible in one area but the unemployed are in another area. If we really wanted to stop jobs from getting shipped to the third world we could consider companies like Nike to be based in China because their products are manufactured there and have a trade embargo with any country that allows companies to make their products in "sweatshops". Not that I would advocate such a policy because it would backfire severly but it's a solution.