News I really see no hope for employment in the US

[gravenewworld]

Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

 

[discrete*]

I agree. But, I think those opportunities will not be available for a while. In the meantime, we are going through a period of change, an information revolution. The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.

I don't want to jump down your throat for this post, but come on, man. This is just not realistic. First of all, it's full of all sorts of paradoxical situations. Like if your saying music is free, than why would anyone make music? Therefore, we'd hit a point where we wouldn't have music anymore. That extends to anything. What you're saying is not even possible in a Utopian future; perhaps in the most dire of dystopia, though.

If it were to happen the way you say, societies would crumble and we'd revert back to our more primitive selves. Human beings are not inherently in this to help each other out, we're in this to survive -- just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Take away commerce and barter systems, and we'd be killing each other for food.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Failure of imagination.

This is a forum of scientists and engineers, and they should be aware of the research efforts in every field of science that will bring us more efficient, cheaper, more advanced, and better technology and knowledge. I certainly hope to be one of those people who makes this a reality.

Perhaps the use of the word "free" was inappropriate since it is normally taken in the absolute. Still, I have no doubts that as more people gain access to knowledge and technology, things will become cheaper and more accessible to even more people.

Just 10 years ago I had to buy individual CDs for $13.99/ea to listen to music or watch movies. Today, for 14.99/mo I can watch as many movies as I want thanks to Netflix and for $10.00/mo to listen to as many songs as I want thanks to Rhapsody.com. Utopia? No. Neartopia? Yes.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Not in a big or medium sized University. But if you are willing to go teach at a small liberal arts school, there are usually a good number of those to pick from.

Have you applied for these jobs before? In my experience, teaching universities want people with teaching experience. Most of the people I know who went the small liberal arts route worked as adjuncts and lecturers rather than doing traditional postdocs. More research isn't going to make you a better teacher. Also, keep in mind that while there are a lot of liberal arts colleges, not many of them need a lot of physics professors.

 

[mheslep]

Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

Have you considered starting your own show on the side, as has advertised by our noted PF'r with the Green Hair?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3082752&postcount=12
http://www.chembuddy.com/
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=Buffer-Maker&right=buffer-calculator
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&right=equation-balancing-stoichiometry
http://www.ph-meter.info/
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrode

That's at least an option to consider before giving into a forecast of perpetual US unemployment.Edit: Exxon is hiring. I've heard they use a chemist or two.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1004/gallery.fortune500_most_hiring.fortune/12.html

 

[chemisttree]

Look at that, Abott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?

 

[chemisttree]

Have you considered starting your own show on the side, as has advertised by our noted PF chemist?

Who, by the way, isn't a chemist at all. He's a computer scientist!

QED

 

[JDStupi]

Mathnomalous, I do believe that goods will become easier to make and cheaper to produce due to better technology. However, you said "This is a forum of scientists and engineers[...]" as though we should know what could be done, but what could be done is not necessarily what will be done. The world is not a forum of scientists and engineers, it is a world of people, and we are a political species. If you believe that there will simply be cheap goods for everyone and people won't have to work, I think your misunderstanding the world, which includes power hungry people. 50 years is quite a small timeline for a world with many economic problems and poverty. As "conspiracy" as it may sound, I suggest you read the book within the book 1984 "Theory and Practice of Collective Oligarchy", it certainly speaks about an economy where goods are easy to produce, but the political outcome is vastly different. I am not sugggesting we will go into 1984, simply that their certainly are realistic aspects to that scenario described.

 

[mheslep]

Who, by the way, isn't a chemist at all. He's a computer scientist!

QED

Ah, fixed.

 

[symbolipoint]

Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?

gravenworld started this topic. He at least (me thinking it as an advantage) has a few years of chemical synthesis experience and still working. His knowledge and skill should be transferable. Many other recently layed-off chemists and recent graduates may be less competetive for his target positions. His (and to an extent, their) worries would be business line and management changes, and company-restructuring. This then, is much of what he has been complaining about.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with the reality that an increased opportunity to succeed also means an increased opportunity to *fail*.

This doesn't actually make any sense. If success is defined as a job that pays well enough to support a wife, child, and house then you succeed, or fail. An increased opportunity to succeed means a reduced opportunity to fail.

Also, in terms of entitlement, couldn't it be argued that a worker has a right to earnings based on productivity? As worker productivity has increased dramatically since the 80s, middle class income has been stagnant. See, for instance: http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/27/news/economy/state_of_working_america/index.htm

 

[mheslep]

As worker productivity has increased dramatically since the 80s, middle class income has been stagnant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex"

 

[vici10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex"

The question was about wages and overall increased productivity of workers. Your source does not say much about workers productivity. Better approximation would be increase in capital gains vs. wages. By this comparison, one can say that wages remained stagnant.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This doesn't actually make any sense. If success is defined as a job that pays well enough to support a wife, child, and house then you succeed, or fail. An increased opportunity to succeed means a reduced opportunity to fail.

Also, in terms of entitlement, couldn't it be argued that a worker has a right to earnings based on productivity? As worker productivity has increased dramatically since the 80s, middle class income has been stagnant. See, for instance: http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/27/news/economy/state_of_working_america/index.htm

I'm thinking in context of global markets. Bigger markets, more varied markets, etc imply more opportunities. However, there is also increased competition for those opportunities.

Look at it this way- the top 1% of the US labor force is (about) 3M people. Globally, the top 1% of the labor force is about 60M people. By gaining access to larger markets, you have to compete against a much larger pool of talent.

To be sure, we have been glossing over the distinction between 'entitlement', 'right', etc. We could discuss what constitutes a 'fair' wage as well. As the US auto worker discovered 10-20 years ago, what constitutes a 'fair wage' often depends on where the employee lives.

Defining success "as a job that pays well enough to support a wife, child, and house" must take into account the significant and absolute differences in required wages between someone living in the US and someone living in (say) Bolivia- especially since the Bolivian may be as productive as you.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I'm thinking in context of global markets. Bigger markets, more varied markets, etc imply more opportunities. However, there is also increased competition for those opportunities.

Right, so what matters is the ratio of "good" candidates seeking work, to the ratio of "good" jobs. How these are defined is obviously tricky, but my point is that the idea you can somehow increase the chance of success AND increase the risk of failure is nonsense.

Of course, you can increase the chance of success for third world workers, etc, while decreasing it for first world workers, but I got the impression that wasn't the point you were trying to make.

Hence, what people are complaining about in the thread is that they are seeing less chances to succeed in high skill, high education professions like chemistry.

 

[mheslep]

The question was about wages and overall increased productivity of workers. Your source does not say much about workers productivity.

The statement by ParticleGrl was "middle class income has been stagnant." The source I reference speaks directly to that statement, to individual income. By the way, is there an original source link that goes with that posted pic?

 

[ParticleGrl]

The statement by ParticleGrl was "middle class income has been stagnant." The source I reference speaks directly to that statement, to individual income. By the way, is there an original source link that goes with that posted pic?

Actually, my statement was relative to productivity gains, middle class income has been stagnant.

 

[WhoWee]

Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?

Not trying to challenge your stats - any idea as to trends where a chemist assumes other duties - maybe sales, QA, or management?

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

Of course, you can increase the chance of success for third world workers, etc, while decreasing it for first world workers, but I got the impression that wasn't the point you were trying to make.
<snip>.

Actually, that is pretty much exactly the point I am trying to make. That's what has driven manufacturing out of the US, and is what is driving R&D out of the US. So, the question becomes "how can we (first world workers) remain competitive?"

One way is to focus on what differentiates us (american citizens) from other countries- specifically, the explicit freedoms of speech and expression encourages people with creativity and imagination to give their ideas form. This cannot happen in repressive societies. Imagination and creativity is an essential element of problem-solving, so it is not surprising that American has historically led the world in innovative technology development.

Another advantageous aspect of american society is the lack of an explicit caste structure and ruling class- cynicism aside, there is an incredible amount of upward (and downward) mobility in US society. This constant churn, when coupled with open expression and the rapid dissemination of ideas over the interwebnets, leads to a constant influx of new ideas and willingness to try new things. Again, this is not seen in more ossified societies.

Lastly, the US has historically been open to immigrants. This also provides a steady influx of new ideas. Efforts to restrict immigration should be resisted (personally, I find the EB-5 program incredibly cynical).

 

[gravenewworld]

Not trying to challenge your stats - any idea as to trends where a chemist assumes other duties - maybe sales, QA, or management?

Glassware cleaning duties

 

[gravenewworld]

Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?

These stats perfectly apply to me, except for the income bit and I interpret them the same way as you. It doesn't surprise me at all that a huge work force in the chemist arena comes from individuals with 1-4 years of experience and you see a steep decline in the number of those who are older that are employed in the chemical industry. Like I said, tons and tons of firms have moved to the whole permatemp scheme, and older individuals that need to support a family, pay a mortgage, and college tuitions for their children simply won't put up with it and move on to other fields for a career. However, these stats also don't get into the nitty gritty details.

How many of the 51% of young individuals working in the 1-4 years experience range are permatemps (it's probably a big portion)? How many of the people in the 5-9 years range still have their original jobs? No one tabulates statistics like or (at least that I know of) on other things that can be used to measure the quality of life with respect to a career field. Most of the time you only see employment rates and salaries. These statistics say nothing about expected job stability, how many people do or do not have health care, who does or does not have retirement benefits, how many times they have had to relocate, etc. etc.

Here are my ex-co workers' employment histories that I got from linkedin (posted so they remain anonymous):

Chemist #1:
Post doc: 1995-1997
Industry job 1: 1997-2001
Industry job 2: Feb 2001-Nov 2001
Industry job 3: 2001-2010
::unemployment 6 months::
Industry job 4: Jan 2011-

Chemist #2:
Industry job 1: 1985-1990
Industry job 2: 1990-1994
Industry job 3: 1995-2000
Industry job 4: 2001-2010
::unemployment 7 months and still counting::

Chemist #3:
Post doc: 1997-2000
Industry job: 2000-present
(company is about to go bankrupt though)

Chemist #4:
Industry job 1: 1987-1987
Industry job 2: 1988-1989
Grad Assistant: 1989-1993
Industry job 3: 1994-1995
Industry job 4: 1995-1996
Industry job 5: 1996-2001
Industry job 6: 2001-2009
::still unemployed, switching careers and currently in grad school for nursing::

Chemist#5:
Industry job 1: 1999-2001
Grad Assistant: 2001-2005
Industry job 2: 2004-2005
Industry job 3: 2005-2005
Industry job 4: 2005-2007 (permatemp)
Industry job 5: 2007-2008
::left field, went on to teach high school chemistry (phd needed?)::

Chemist #6:
industry job 1: 1994-1995 (temp)
industry job 2: 1995-1998
industry job 3: 1998-2001
industry job 4: 2001-2009
::unemployment 9 months::
industry job 5: 2010-present

Chemist#7:
Post doc: 2002-2005
Industry job 1: 2005-2009
Associate professor: 2010-present

Chemist #8:
industry job 1: 1977-2000 (golden years)
industry job 2: 2000-2001
industry job 3: 2001-2002
industry job 4: 2002-2005 (permatemp)
industry job 5: 2005-2009
::left industry, looking to do NPO work::

Chemist #9:
Industry job 1: 1996-1998
Industry job 2: 1998-2006
Industry job 3: 2006-2008 (permatemp)
Industry job 4: 2008-2009
Industry job 5: 2009-present (permatemp last I heard)

Chemist #10:
Post doc: 2007-2009
Post doc: 2009-2010

Chemist #11:
Industry job 1: 1982-2001 (golden years)
Industry job 2: 2001-2005
Industry job 3: 2005-2009
Industry job 4: 2009-present
(this guy was an insanely smart chemist with only a BS, his new company is about to go bankrupt too. He's looking to get into finance/accounting)

Chemist#12:
not on linked in, but I know he's had 5 or more different jobs in the past 8 years. Most were temp positions, currently is employed as a permatemp

Chemist#13:
not on linkedin, 1st job 2005-2009, 2nd job 2009-present

Me:
2005-2009, unemployment 11 months, currently underemployedNo wonder the numbers of chemists who still work in the chemical industry with more than 4 years experience drops precipitously. Now some of those people did change jobs at their own choice, but that still doesn't hide the fact that many chemists these days can't hold a job for roughly longer than 5-8 years. I'm starting to fall into the same pattern that they all did, but refuse to let it happen, which is why I'm leaving this field. How am I ever going to buy a house or start a family if I can never live in the same area for more than 5 years because of chronic unemployment or job loss? One of my bosses was the #1 cited and read author in an ACS journal, has over 300 publications and patents, graduated from an ivy league institution with a PhD, was head of all discovery and has years of managerial experience, and is quite a famous chemist. He's been unemployed for 8 months now. If this guy can't find a job, how am I supposed to ever find a decent one in the chemical industry? ACS, BLS, and CEN employment data don't reveal the nitty gritty details of employment within this industry like what I posted above. I'm going to give STEM one more chance by starting over and moving into engineering (going to school for free!), but if it fails again, I think I just may become a barber, farmer, or plaintain frier in Costa Rica.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Imagination and creativity is an essential element of problem-solving, so it is not surprising that American has historically led the world in innovative technology development.

But will the US continue to lead when people who specialize in innovation (like chemists and other scientific workers) can't maintain a "living wage" or any kind of career stability in the US? I think the complaint of the original post, that there is a lack of opportunity for chemists working in the US is somewhat worrisome.

Another advantageous aspect of american society is the lack of an explicit caste structure and ruling class- cynicism aside, there is an incredible amount of upward (and downward) mobility in US society.

Actually, the US has a lower level of mobility then most high income countries. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

 

[CAC1001]

Actually, the US has a lower level of mobility then most high income countries. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

That I don't buy at all. You try to make a lot of money or start and grow a business in most European countries, you will get taxed and regulated far more than in a country like America. Most people who really want to become economically successful move to the UK or the United States. No one intending to make a boatload of money and really rise up goes to France, Spain, Italy, and so forth.

 

[twofish-quant]

Elaborate. I'm just curious...

Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote a book on what happened. I haven't had time to read the book, but the interviews that he was given (you can look on his interview on Freshair) give a good description of the events.

As far as what I was seeing. Imagine one morning you woke up and none of your ATM or credit cards worked, and your bank account and credit limits were meaningless numbers. You go to work and you find that place shut down, because your employer's bank accounts and credit are gone, and if you find some loose change and go to the stores, you'll find that they are useless because the stores bank accounts and credit are gone.

We were really close to that situation. I think that something would have happened before we went into "Max Mad/Road Warrior" territory, but the scary thing is that I can't imagine what. The last time something like this happened was the Great Depression.

 

[twofish-quant]

You are really losing me here- are you saying any physically possible wish is a reasonable entitlement demand?

No. I don't believe that. I'm trying to understand why it's difficult for me to communicate what I'm saying. I believe that any physically impossible wish is unreasonable. However, if a wish is physically possible then is *may* be unreasonable or it *may* be reasonable.

I'm trying to understand how you distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable wishes when there isn't an issue of physical impossibility.

You originally asked me a very specific question- is it unreasonable to be entitled to a job sufficient to support a house, family, and pay for kids to go to college- I said yes, that is unreasonable. You then re-framed the question in a very abstract way, talking about equally apportioning the world's supply of gold, which I tried to parse. What exactly are you trying to ask me?

I'm trying to understand your views. I'm stating my views, which you are free to disagree with. My belief is that physically impossible demands are unreasonable. If you have someone that wishes for something that is physically impossible, then we don't disagree. Sorry you can't have a starship.

However, that wish doesn't fall into the category of physical impossibility. So I'm trying to understand why you think it is unreasonable.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think someone else should have to buy my food.

If I took his money, then I owe him food. Part of it, is that I don't think that 100% of the money that I make is "mine." Also, if you make less than $250K, I don't think that *you* should pay for more than you already do.

You are also sliding off of 'entitlement' to the idea of 'charity'. They are not exclusive. The difference is that charity is entered into voluntarily, entitlement is a compulsive form of taxation (on someone else, of course...)

The trouble is that if you have enough money, you can change the rules to make things "non-voluntary". For example, I have enough money so that I can give money to the right politicians so that they vote for the right laws to increase my paycheck so that I can give even *more* money to the right politicians.

If you don't do something about the this, then you will end up with a situation, in which I got everything, and everyone else starves, which is a system that I worry we are headed off to. There are people that think the answer is to keep the politicians from increasing taxes, and to rely on markets to keep things fair.

The problem is that I really don't think this will work. What I worry will happen is that since I know a lot about markets, I can use them to increase my paycheck, which will give me more of an ability to use my paycheck to use the markets to increase my paycheck. The thing about taxation is that it's obvious. But there are a lot of subtle ways of changing the rules so that your money ends up in my pocket without you realizing it.

Just to give an example, everyone time you use a credit card, some of that money goes into my pocket. If you put money in a checking account, some of that money goes into my pocket. Now you don't *see* any of that money moving from you to me, but that's because I'm clever.

As far as giving you my money. I'm already doing that. I put my money in a bank, which loans the money out to students, which then goes to your paycheck.

The problem with voluntary charity is that it can set up the wrong incentives. If I'm a nice guy and I put my money into clear air projects, then what happens is that I get crushed by the slimeball that uses his paycheck to contribute to the politicians that changes the rules so that he makes more money and I don't.

Let me tell you a story about why I don't think that voluntary charity works...

A few years ago, I interviewed for a few places, and I ended up working for a company that sees the world the way I do. One of the places that I interviewed for was a company that actually paid a lot more money, but it was obvious to me that the people running it were incompetent and doing things that I didn't think should be done. Well, happy ending, my company is doing fine, this other company blew up. Great?

Well, when this other company blew up, it nearly took down the rest of the world. So even though I made the "right" choice, it wouldn't have mattered because I would have been out on the street anyway.

 

[twofish-quant]

Another advantageous aspect of american society is the lack of an explicit caste structure and ruling class- cynicism aside, there is an incredible amount of upward (and downward) mobility in US society.

There actually isn't

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

Every empirical study that I've seen says that there is a lot less class mobility in the US than in Scandinavia. If you have any data that says different, I'd like to see it.

This constant churn, when coupled with open expression and the rapid dissemination of ideas over the interwebnets, leads to a constant influx of new ideas and willingness to try new things. Again, this is not seen in more ossified societies.

On the other hand, there is a dark side to this. If you think that society is fair and what you made is yours, then you are going to be a lot nastier to people that don't have stuff. Americans tend to think that the poor deserve to be poor, whereas places where it's obvious that wealth is not based on individual merit tend to be somewhat more compassionate.

The worst possible situation in when people *think* that society is fair and are nasty to the poor when in fact it isn't.

 

[twofish-quant]

Actually, my statement was relative to productivity gains, middle class income has been stagnant.

And the productivity gains have gone into people like me who are in the upper class in finance. Anytime you make a productivity gain, that involves borrowing money, moving money, and doing all these financial things, and that goes straight into the insanely large paycheck that I'm getting.

Since I'm imposing a "private tax" on everything that you do that involves money, I think it's only fair to have a "public tax" to recapture some of that. But it's weird how hard it is to convince people to take your money.

 

[ParticleGrl]

That I don't buy at all. You try to make a lot of money or start and grow a business in most European countries, you will get taxed and regulated far more than in a country like America. Most people who really want to become economically successful move to the UK or the United States. No one intending to make a boatload of money and really rise up goes to France, Spain, Italy, and so forth.

The study I linked to (and others like it) disagrees. What data do you have to support your conjecture?

 

[Andy Resnick]

But will the US continue to lead when people who specialize in innovation (like chemists and other scientific workers) can't maintain a "living wage" or any kind of career stability in the US? I think the complaint of the original post, that there is a lack of opportunity for chemists working in the US is somewhat worrisome.



Actually, the US has a lower level of mobility then most high income countries. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

That study is irrelevant to our discussion- we are (currently) competing against China and India, who are not part of that report. Clearly, India has a rigid caste structure. China has a system (hukou) that prevents free mobility, resulting in a two-tiered (urban and rural) citizenry. The US has neither of these.

As to your first paragraph, that is *precisely* what I am talking about- how are first-world workers going to remain competitive in the global economy? I've laid out my ideas- focus on what makes the US worker unique and valued. Again- nobody is *entitled* to a "living wage" or career stability. Deal with it.

 

[twofish-quant]

One way is to focus on what differentiates us (american citizens) from other countries- specifically, the explicit freedoms of speech and expression encourages people with creativity and imagination to give their ideas form.

If we have freedom of speech then why are you the only one posting here under their real names? The reason I don't post under my real name is that I'm worried that if my boss knows that I'm posting my real views, I'll get fired.

The US is better than most countries when it comes to governmental restrictions on free speech, but there are all of these private restrictions that get in the way of creativity and imagination. Also freedom of the press implies the ability to afford a press. If I had $1M in the bank, then I wouldn't care at all if I got fired, but since I don't (at least not yet), I do.

Also, one thing that surprises people is that Chinese workers can be very outspoken. You will get into serious problems if you say something nasty about the government, but the way that manufacturing works, there is less a labor/management difference so that people can be open about what they think about their boss.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I'm trying to understand how you distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable wishes when there isn't an issue of physical impossibility.

That's easy- a wish/demand/entitlement is unreasonable when it abrogates property rights. You cannot dole out the world's supply of gold, it's not yours to give away. Similarly, I have no claim on your kidneys, even if I need a new one.

A wish/demand/entitlement is also unreasonable if it forces me into a contractual agreement that I did not enter into of my own free will: taxation without representation, for example. You are free to ask that I pay you $x, but I am no obligation to meet your demand.

I'm sure I could come up with other criteria, but I don't have an idea on what you think is unreasonable.

 

[Andy Resnick]

If we have freedom of speech then why are you the only one posting here under their real names?

Huh? I choose to post under my real name; you do not. PF posts are not covered by the 1st amendment- you enter into an agreement to restrict what you can say in exchange for posting here. For free.

Your posts are starting to get a little wacky...

 

[twofish-quant]

That study is irrelevant to our discussion- we are (currently) competing against China and India, who are not part of that report. Clearly, India has a rigid caste structure. China has a system (hukou) that prevents free mobility, resulting in a two-tiered (urban and rural) citizenry.

It's not clear at all. In China, nothing prevents you from moving from a rural area to a major city. What you don't get without a "hukou" is local services. If you are a rural resident in Shanghai, you can't get access to Shanghai public schools, free health care, and the Shanghai city pension system, without switching your residency. Now the government is *trying* very hard to change the system, but you have the problem of funding. If you allow rural migrants to Shanghai free access to Shanghai schools, then you have to find a way of funding things.

Also most rural residents have a major reason for not switching residency. If you have a rural hukou, then by law, you are entitled to a plot of land, so if you lose your job in the city, you can to back to the countryside, show your ID card, and the local government will give you land by which you can grow vegetables.

I don't know anything about India.

One reason I worry about the US, is that I'm finding that Americans in general are extremely misinformed about what goes on in China. There is a huge amount of class mobility in China, although whether that continues or not is something that people are worried about.

As to your first paragraph, that is *precisely* what I am talking about- how are first-world workers going to remain competitive in the global economy?

I'm not sure that competition is a right framework. If it's a competition, then whose "side" am I on?

I've laid out my ideas- focus on what makes the US worker unique and valued. Again- nobody is *entitled* to a "living wage" or career stability. Deal with it.

Curiously one of the things that China has going for it is that China believes that every citizen of the PRC is entitled to a living wage and a job. (Career stability is something else. It's fine to have a system in which people switch jobs every three years if you have some guarantee that there is always some sort of job.)

One reason China had a much easier time going through the crisis is that when it happened, the Chinese government basically ordered the big state-owned enterprises *not* to fire workers, and in the case of private firms, there was a lot of effort to make sure that people that got fired had payouts, and then they made sure that anyone that couldn't find a job could go back to farming.

The result of that was that people didn't stop spending, which kept things from going in a downward spiral.

As far as democracy. China has a weird system that has bits of democracy. In the US, people vote politicians out of office. In China, people riot. Chinese officials want to keep people very busy making money, because the second people stop making money, you will have a large number of people outside of Party headquarters wanting to beat up some politician.

 

[twofish-quant]

Huh? I choose to post under my real name; you do not. PF posts are not covered by the 1st amendment- you enter into an agreement to restrict what you can say in exchange for posting here. For free.

Sure, but your point was that the US could be more creative because people can speak their minds. If you want to maximize creativity, then *private* restrictions on free speech become as important as *public* ones.

If the First Amendment is irrelevant here (and I agree that it is), then how is an American forum more "competitive" than a Chinese one? It's a fact that the Chinese government is far more authoritarian and less supportive of free speech than the US. However, if the First Amendment is irrelevant in "private" contexts, then how does the First Amendment translate into a competitive advantage for the United States?

 

[twofish-quant]

That's easy- a wish/demand/entitlement is unreasonable when it abrogates property rights.

So how do we determine who owns what? Let's say that you deposit money into a bank, the bank loans out that money to someone else who deposits that money into another bank. Who "owns" that money?

I'm sure I could come up with other criteria, but I don't have an idea on what you think is unreasonable.

Ask me.

Personally, I think that the "goal" is a prosperous society. You can ask me in detail what that society looks like, and I'm not sure that I know, but in the world that I'm thinking of, no one goes hungry, and everyone has a job.

Now, I'm plenty flexible about how to get there. If you can convince me that a system of property rights will get us to a world in which no one goes hungry and every has a job, then I'm all for it. Systems based on the abolition of private property just don't work. So it's obvious that you need some role for private property and markets. It's also clear to me that systems that have no government intervention just don't work.

Basically, I *think* the difference is that I consider property rights a *means* whereas you consider property rights to be an *end*.

There is a school of thought (Austrian economics and libertarian philosophy) that argues that a society with minimal governmental interference leads to maximum prosperity. The idea is that if you have a system of property rights, then pretty much everyone will end up with a job and a house in the end. This is an idea that I respect, and if it turns out that the Austrians are right and minimal government and strong contract rights is in fact the way to get everyone a job, then sign me up.

But based on what I've seen, without some large scale government intervention, you are going to have US society divided between people like me that make insane amounts of money, and people like the OP. I don't want to go down that road, because the end result is a revolution in which I lose everything.

 

[twofish-quant]

Your posts are starting to get a little wacky...

We are getting into quasi-religious beliefs about how the world works. Having someone else explain to you their religion is always a bit wacky. (You really believe *WHAT*?)

It helps if you don't try to convince people. I have don't think I have a chance in hell of convincing you of my beliefs, but it's sufficient to just reach the point I think I've explained them.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So how do we determine who owns what? Let's say that you deposit money into a bank, the bank loans out that money to someone else who deposits that money into another bank. Who "owns" that money?

Now you are just being silly- you expect me to believe that a financier has no comprehension of property rights?

 

[WhoWee]

Now you are just being silly- you expect me to believe that a financier has no comprehension of property rights?

Are we still discussing employment in the US - where we have a well defined legal system and laws?

 

[mheslep]

Lastly, the US has historically been open to immigrants. This also provides a steady influx of new ideas. Efforts to restrict immigration should be resisted (personally, I find the EB-5 program incredibly cynical).

I agree, that efforts to restrict legal immigration should be resisted.

 

[chemisttree]

These stats perfectly apply to me, except for the income bit and I interpret them the same way as you. It doesn't surprise me at all that a huge work force in the chemist arena comes from individuals with 1-4 years of experience and you see a steep decline in the number of those who are older that are employed in the chemical industry. Like I said, tons and tons of firms have moved to the whole permatemp scheme, and older individuals that need to support a family, pay a mortgage, and college tuitions for their children simply won't put up with it and move on to other fields for a career. However, these stats also don't get into the nitty gritty details.

The Feb. monthly meeting of the San Antonio Section of the ACS features a speaker who is a past President of ACS. His topic?

Read it and weep...

The Chemistry Enterprise: Do We Have a Future, or What?

Presented by William F. Carroll, Jr. Ph.D. ACS President, 2005

The Chemistry Enterprise is globalizing, which means changes for chemistry in the US. Whether it relates to the shift in chemistry from small molecules to very large, the commoditization of specialty chemicals, or natural gas pricing, the next ten years will bring sea change to the chemical industry in the US. For colleges, the operating costs and sources of professors and students will drive the health of chemistry higher education. How do we prepare our current and future members--those who are employed or those who hope to be--for the future state of chemistry? The answer lies in our education, personal marketing and interaction with a simultaneously shrinking globe and expanding network.

Gravenewworld, you are invited. I'll buy.

 

[chemisttree]

Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

Interesting the reasons Abbott give. I thought the health care legislation was supposed to save jobs? I guess the laid off workers are thankful that Obama has fixed the health care situation and they can keep their current coverage.

We'll all be equal soon...

The Associated Press reports that Abbott Laboratories will eliminate 1,900 employees to keep profits up. The maker of drugs and devices said the terminations involve U.S. marketing and manufacturing positions. The cuts, which represent about 2 percent of the company's workforce, are expected to save the company $200 million annually in coming years. Abbott blamed the cuts on new fees and pricing pressures associated with the health reform law and a challenging regulatory environment at the Food and Drug Administration, which approves new drugs.

 

[CAC1001]

There actually isn't

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf

Every empirical study that I've seen says that there is a lot less class mobility in the US than in Scandinavia. If you have any data that says different, I'd like to see it.

Center for American Progress is a left-leaning think tank, so their data could be biased. But that aside, reality disputes their conclusion. The United States has incredible mobility. You can start at the bottom and rise to the top and you can go from the top to the bottom in American society very quickly if you aren't careful.

 

[CAC1001]

The study I linked to (and others like it) disagrees. What data do you have to support your conjecture?

The study is from an organization with an agenda. IMO, reality disputes it. I think it is blatantly obvious that income mobility is very high in a country like America. There is no fixed class system in this country as some may try to claim. We don't have a fixed class of poor, of middle, of rich. We have income brackets. Many of today's "rich" were "poor" ten or twenty years ago.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The study is from an organization with an agenda. IMO, reality disputes it. I think it is blatantly obvious that income mobility is very high in a country like America. There is no fixed class system in this country as some may try to claim. We don't have a fixed class of poor, of middle, of rich. We have income brackets. Many of today's "rich" were "poor" ten or twenty years ago.

If its so obvious, then please, provide some data. Certainly, the American dream is high mobility, but how well are we living up to the dream? Every study I am aware of suggests the US has less mobility than (for instance) Scandinavian countries. I think the point of the studies linked to is that most of today's rich were slightly less rich ten or twenty years ago.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe data showing low mobility in the US is accurate. But what it can't measure is OPPORTUNITY for mobility.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I believe data showing low mobility in the US is accurate. But what it can't measure is OPPORTUNITY for mobility.

What do you mean? I would think actual mobility and "opportunity for mobility" should be at least linearly related? How can a country have more "opportunity for mobility" and not also have more mobility?

 

[russ_watters]

They will always be different because a huge fraction of people won't take advantage of the opportunity. A huge fraction of the population chooses not to finish high school, a choice that leads to lower income.

 

[mheslep]

...
Systems based on the abolition of private property just don't work. So it's obvious that you need some role for private property and markets. It's also clear to me that systems that have no government intervention just don't work.

Basically, I *think* the difference is that I consider property rights a *means* whereas you consider property rights to be an *end*.

There is a school of thought (Austrian economics and libertarian philosophy) that argues that a society with minimal governmental interference leads to maximum prosperity. The idea is that if you have a system of property rights, then pretty much everyone will end up with a job and a house in the end. This is an idea that I respect, and if it turns out that the Austrians are right and minimal government and strong contract rights is in fact the way to get everyone a job, then sign me up.

I don't see how the above statement lives within the same viewpoint that earlier produced:

...
Any economic and political system that requires people to be saints is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure that Communism would work fine if you could find Party bureaucrats that were totally non-corrupt and completely ethical, but those people are rare, and people that are really self-sacrificing tend not to get into positions of power...

since the latter abolishes property rights, saintly Party bosses or not.

 

[ParticleGrl]

They will always be different because a huge fraction of people won't take advantage of the opportunity. A huge fraction of the population chooses not to finish high school, a choice that leads to lower income.

Different, but I would think proportional. I see no reason to believe (for instance) that the US population takes less advantage of opportunity than the populations of the Scandinavian countries.

 

[mheslep]

On the subject mobility, note that Resnick originally qualified his point thus

.
Another advantageous aspect of american society is the lack of an explicit caste structure and ruling class- cynicism aside, there is an incredible amount of upward (and downward) mobility in US society.

[highlights mine]
Social class, or caste, is not the same thing as economic mobility though I grant they are certainly related. With respect to actual barriers presented by social class/caste, it appears to me entirely obvious that the US is second to absolutely no other country, at least among the many countries I've visited, and what appears obvious from not only US history but current events.

I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?_r=1