News Are Airlines Outsourcing Maintenance to Other Countries Increasingly?

[outsider]

When an older person who once was a software engineer is now selling shoes, it is much more than a problem of perception Russ. Talk to people Russ.

Cal didn't spend all of that money and energy on a perceived notion. Neither did the Journal of American psychology.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...+workforce+investment+act+underemployed&hl=en

If the problem doesn't exist why was there a Work Force Investment Act passed in 1998? And why is its implementation currently hidden deeply withing the department of Labor?

Can you give me a link that indicates that the outsourcing of American jobs has improved the life of the average American?

I agree that outsourcing is hurting us at the core... but as the weather changes, H2O changes... one day your on top of the clouds... the next your a water droplet... some head to the ground... some head for the ocean... just depends who you are... (we have more control of our destiny than a water molecule...) But we are subject to the conditions in our environment is basically what I'm trying to say... change the environment!

 

[SOS2008]

I don't have time to catch up in this thread at the moment, and I've expressed my concerns regarding trade agreements, illegal immigration, and of course out-sourcing. Two incidents come to mind from personal experience.

I was in the technology industry for a company that provided IT consulting services (my division specialized in Oracle Applications). In the summer before 9-11 we acquired a new customer that did maintenance for the airline industry. Of course 9-11 hit the entire airline industry hard, but with the out-sourcing, this company went out of business all together. The chain reaction continued in that our company also lost them as a customer (and we lost an airline client too). At the same time we lost an important bid to a consulting company that "body shopped" work out to India. Oracle applications is very popular with manufacturing, and all our manufacturing clients were struggling to prevent lay offs and to stay in business let alone invest in IT.

Ultimately my company scaled back the Oracle division to the bare bones. I lost my job along with the many other people in the tech industry, and most of us are now employed beneath our abilities at a fraction of what we used to earn. But don't worry your pretty little heads about these things. I'm sure all your jobs are nice and secure.

 

[edward]

The pink slips and the underemployment are devastating to people. But there is much more to it than that, once an industry is lost it is lost forever.

The health of U.S. aerospace employment also has an affect on our nation’s security. As outsourcing, co-production, and other similar activities grow in the defense aerospace industry, U.S. aerospace employment shrinks. In addition to the direct impact on employment, U.S. dependence on other countries for aerospace defense products presents at least two other issues: first, dependence on other countries for the manufacture, development, or assembly for our defense products is as unacceptable as it is unwise, especially in a post-September 11, 2001 world. What happens when our allies become our enemies? What happens when supply chains become disrupted by unpredictable events? Second, as skilled workers in the defense industry lose their jobs, the deskilling of America’s defense workforce continues at a dramatic rate. If and when we as a country need to rebuild our defense industry, skilled workers vital for the success of such an industry will not be available.

http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_01_04wrts/herrnstadt_owen_wrts.htm

How much of our economy can we afford to give away? It appears that few care and no one is counting. The total industrial losses in the USA are "staggering" yet I can't find a total.

Individual totals for industries can be found, for instance The aerospace industry alone has lost 600,000 skilled jobs since 1990. But the problem is that all industry is linked and interdependent in our economy.

It is a bit like the illegal alien situation, they just keep coming , but how many is too many when no one is counting?

 

[BobG]

Of course 9-11 hit the entire airline industry hard, but with the out-sourcing, this company went out of business all together.

This is the real effect of outsourcing jobs overseas.

Outsourcing of jobs has happened for a long time, whether it's Japanese car companies importing cheaper and better products into the US or whether it's US companies building factories overseas (the only difference is whether the profits are going to an American company or a foreign company). The rate probably increased in the '90's when companies couldn't hire enough qualified employees, especially in the IT field. We just didn't notice it since US wages were rising so fast.

As soon as the economy takes a downturn and there's less jobs available, we start noticing how many jobs are being outsourced. It's not that outsourcing caused the job shortage - it's that outsourcing makes it a little bit worse. Especially if wages were pushed above the normal market value during the boom years - there's more pressure to get out of overinflated wages at least until the market catches back up.

The only real difference is that there are countries that can suck up some of the higher skilled jobs - they didn't always have that capability. Unless they had invested in a good education system for a couple of decades, they were pretty much limited to picking up jobs in unskilled labor. Now, some workers who put quite a bit of effort into acquiring some rare skills and knowledge are finding they're not immune to the ups and downs of the US economy anymore. They're having to compete in a global market just like like the guys in the factories.

The US economy is still the overriding factor into the jobs and wages that are available. Outsourcing has an effect, but watch how the problem 'disappears' as soon as the economy starts adding jobs at its normal pace. Especially if China's and India's economies 'adjust' back to realistic growth rates - economies that grow as fast as their economies are, or even as fast as ours grew in the '90s, tend to see a drastic snap back to reality.

 

[edward]

So, no one believes that underemployment exists. OK But tell me this, is an engineer who is working three partime jobs to make ends meet overemployed?

How do we categorize a person who used to work in a Chrysler engine factory, then lost his job when the new Hemmi factory was built in Saltillo Mexico, and he is now working at Walmart part time and clerking the graveyard shift at a Circle K?

All of the big economic theories are just so much bull to a guy like that. He knows the job he loved is not going to return during the next snap back.

American workers need to have jobs that they can depend on. Without dependable employemt they are not as productive. When we lose our productivity edge, more jobs go off shore. The cycle will then continue until there is nothing left here but Wonderbread, toilet paper, and Coca Cola production.

 

[FredGarvin]

Plain and simple, the types of jobs that existed 20-50 years ago are not around any more. The sooner one realizes that the better. I have had to realize that I need to be extremely flexible with what I expect from my employer now. The climate changes so fast in aerospace that if you have the mentality that many older individuals do, i.e. this is my job, I have done it for so many years, this is how it will be, then you are a dinasaur. My company just went thru two purges and a lot of older folks "retired" mostly because of their refusal to become flexible and to learn new jobs and skills. Granted, a lot were lost simply to reduce headcount. I think that's unavoidable if you don't have the buisiness coming in.

The automotive companies are going through that now. The dim lights are slowly lighting up that the days of wasteful over employment are gone. People that had one very specific job that kept them occupied, maybe, 20-30 hours a week are being hunted down and eliminated. Pretty soon I am hoping the unions follow suit.

 

[russ_watters]

When an older person who once was a software engineer is now selling shoes, it is much more than a problem of perception Russ. Talk to people Russ.

Anecdotal evidence is the biggest fallacy there is, edward. It does not provide an accurate total picture.

Can you give me a link that indicates that the outsourcing of American jobs has improved the life of the average American?

That sort of thing is not a direct corellation. What I have provided is the evidence that it has not resulted in a worstening of the country's overall employment situation. Unemployment is down (long term) and incomes are up (long term). Could it be more better without outsourcing? I don't know, but that's not what I'm trying to prove anyway. What I have shown is that it is not worse, as you seem to believe.

So, no one believes that underemployment exists.

No one said that, edward, because it most certainly does exist. What I'm saying is that it is not the problem you percieve it to be.

Plain and simple, the types of jobs that existed 20-50 years ago are not around any more. The sooner one realizes that the better. I have had to realize that I need to be extremely flexible with what I expect from my employer now.

This is related to one of edward's points earlier. To the 55 year old worker who loses a job because the market has changed, it is unfortunate, but its simply a reality that markets change and that fact cannot be seen as a flaw in the market. Its part luck, part foresight, and part just a planned risk.

Its nice being young (I'm 29), which means I have a lot of options and not a lot of responsibilities, but nevertheless, I'm at the age when it is time to make the decision on where I want to spend the next 30 years of my life. Part of that decision is choosing a field which I think has some stability in it. IT is a field that has had a lot of growth, but also a lot of change. People who pick it choose to take the risk that the industry could change to something other than what it is today. Actually, that it'll change is pretty much guaranteed - the onus is then on the employee choosing to work in the industry to take the responsibility of changing with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Bob, we seem to agree more than we disagree in this thread, but I just wanted to comment on this:

Perception is everything. People can't be blamed for seeing a problem.

Part of the reason I'm a Republican is that I'm not a big fan of perception. Perceptions can be faulty. I prefer to base my opinions/decisions on reality. Now, perhaps that's naive (even idealistic?) of me, and I fully understand that in some things (politics, economics), perception often makes reality, but IMO, that's just because people allow their perceptions to fool them.

Unrelated comments...

If you think Clinton's a miracle worker, you believe that gain was real and should never be given back. If you think he was a lousy president, you salivate at what the economy is going to be like when the next president takes over. If you think he was fair to middling, or even just a little above average, you cringe at what's ahead for the economy.

Actually, I think Clinton sucked, but the internet boom produced a great economy. So while I don't think that kind of growth can be sustained, I'm still quite optomistic for what the next few decades has in store for us.

In fact, a president inheriting a bad economy is probably destined to be a two-term president and a president inheriting a good economy is probably destined to be a one term president

A true irony, that not many people understnd.

 

[outsider]

So, no one believes that underemployment exists. OK But tell me this, is an engineer who is working three partime jobs to make ends meet overemployed?

I believe there is such a thing... it is real but I think that people are resilient, or don't mind a good shafting... it's definitely an issue.

American workers need to have jobs that they can depend on. Without dependable employemt they are not as productive. When we lose our productivity edge, more jobs go off shore. The cycle will then continue until there is nothing left here but Wonderbread, toilet paper, and Coca Cola production.

I guess as an immigrant, I don't take these things for granted. This goes back to a sense of entitlement.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess as an immigrant, I don't take these things for granted. This goes back to a sense of entitlement.

See, this is why I'm such a big fan of immigration. Immigrants often see the opportunities in the US as a gift and don't take them for granted, while many people born here see them as entilements and do take them for granted.

 

[outsider]

See, this is why I'm such a big fan of immigration. Immigrants often see the opportunities in the US as a gift and don't take them for granted, while many people born here see them as entilements and do take them for granted.

but at the same time... the underemployment does exist and I can understand the fear or disatisfaction... the way companies are outsourcing REALLY does affect a lot of people.

What corporations are doing are just saving money so they can increase the bottomline for investors... a lot of people are now gambling and playing the stock market for survival... ironically, it sometimes ends in suicide.

 

[Moonbear]

How do we categorize a person who used to work in a Chrysler engine factory, then lost his job when the new Hemmi factory was built in Saltillo Mexico, and he is now working at Walmart part time and clerking the graveyard shift at a Circle K?

All of the big economic theories are just so much bull to a guy like that. He knows the job he loved is not going to return during the next snap back.

I both agree and disagree with aspects of the point you're making. On the one hand, yes, it's sad to see someone who is skilled at something lose a job they enjoy. On the other hand, there is never a guarantee anyone will get to do a job they love or even train for. It's important to always have a back-up plan. The job market can shift for reasons other than just outsourcing, and people have to learn to roll with the punches. When it comes to outsourcing, we can focus on the people who lost their jobs because of it, or we can focus on the remaining employees who still have a job because of it. Afterall, if a company is struggling to make ends meet, if they can outsource some of their jobs for less and that enables them to remain in business, all their remaining employees have had their job saved by that outsourcing. If they didn't outsource when they can't afford to pay prevailing wages in the US, then the alternative is to go bankrupt or downsize drastically, and a lot more people lose their jobs that way.

American workers need to have jobs that they can depend on. Without dependable employemt they are not as productive. When we lose our productivity edge, more jobs go off shore. The cycle will then continue until there is nothing left here but Wonderbread, toilet paper, and Coca Cola production.

I disagree on this as it goes entirely against my work ethic. No job is guaranteed. It is the responsibility of the worker to ensure their own employment by doing such a good job that it's more cost-effective to keep them than hire 3 more people to replace them. Too many workers nowadays want to do the minimum they can to keep a job, and unions have made it worse. They seem to enforce this idea that you should do no more than exactly what is in your job description. I think it's job insecurity that keeps people productive. Once someone has job security, they slack off.

It's also the worker's responsibility to make sure they are employable. If someone has training in only one job and has never sought to expand their skill set or think about what they would do if they lost that job, then I don't want to hear them crying when they have to go take an unskilled job. Heck, I have a PhD and still have alternative careers in mind...if I can't get a tenure-track position in X number of years, or research funding goes further down the drains and I can't get enough support to keep my research program running, then I have a list of alternative careers that I've researched and have ensured I have the skill sets to break into those if I have to change paths.

I watched on the news today about Northwest Airline's mechanics going on strike. Good thing they have some of the work outsourced so they can continue flying. I wonder if it ever crossed the minds of the mechanics that if they ditched the union and Northwest didn't have to pay all those extra union fees, they might not need to propose cutting salaries to make ends meet. The worker's union stated they would rather see the airline go bankrupt than accept the terms being offered. Well, they may get what they wish for there. How stupid is that? Rather than lose some jobs and take a pay cut, they'd prefer everyone lose their jobs? If you're willing to see the airline go bankrupt rather than take a pay cut, then quit now.

 

[solutions in a box]

Moonbear
I will be repeating a bit of history here so bear with me.

A great number (about 35%) of American workers are over the age of fifty. Making job changes at any age is difficult and it doesn't get any easier with age. Many of us over the age of fifty, the baby boomers, entered a stable work force which for the most part continued stable well into the 1980's.
We had and still do have a great work ethic. Luckily Many companies prefer older workers just for that reason.

By the 1990's we were told that the economy was to become a service economy. Millions of us lost good paying manual skilled labor jobs, machinists ect., and went back to school for more training.

Now the current trend is to outsource the very jobs that we retrained to perform. It is stressful beyond
belief that we must once again start looking for jobs in a tight job market.

The current market doesn't even pay as much as we were earning 15 years ago in industrial jobs.

Considering that this country was built on the backs of the common working person. A lot of CEO's and other executive types got a free ride to the top. Yet now tend to forget about the workers in favor of the bottom line. When was the last time A CEO took a pay cut?

I don't think a PHD can really connect with the average American worker. For one thing most of the higher educated people, with a few exceptions, have many more options in the work place. When all else fails you can always teach.

At this point those of us who are approaching retirement age are just struggling for survival for a few more years by taking any work we can find.

Those a bit younger must once again retrain for something, but what?? The manufacturing jobs are long gone, and the technical and semi technical jobs are being rapidly outsourced. Call for road service, and you will be talking to a guy in India!


Lastly, where is this all heading? The markets have changed so much, especially in the last five years, and so fast that we don't have economic models that have kept up. Even fairly recent employment statistical data is based on models from the early 90's.

Nothing that we have in any university textbook can really predict what the current and future global markets may bring crashing down on us. Yet we dive right in without making sure that there is enough water in the pool.

 

[outsider]

Now the current trend is to outsource the very jobs that we retrained to perform. It is stressful beyond
belief that we must once again start looking for jobs in a tight job market.

Companies are not expanding onshore anymore... and if so, they are just not big enough to go global yet. Small companies is the way to go right now, but with globalization taking over... the superstore companies are eating up a big piece of the pie.

Considering that this country was built on the backs of the common working person. A lot of CEO's and other executive types got a free ride to the top. Yet now tend to forget about the workers in favor of the bottom line. When was the last time A CEO took a pay cut?

even when they do, they will try to make it up somewhere else... there's more than 1 way to skin a cat as they say

I don't think a PHD can really connect with the average American worker. For one thing most of the higher educated people, with a few exceptions, have many more options in the work place. When all else fails you can always teach.

but there may often, also, be a sense of entitlement that goes along with a doctorate. However, if you are smart enough and have this type of perseverance to get a PHD, it is unlikely that you don't have the resourcefulness to survive in any market.

At this point those of us who are approaching retirement age are just struggling for survival for a few more years by taking any work we can find.

I can definitely see this around me. Some people just suck it up. But what if there is war in your backyard? Wouldn't that be far worse? Things could be worse.

Those a bit younger must once again retrain for something, but what?? The manufacturing jobs are long gone, and the technical and semi technical jobs are being rapidly outsourced. Call for road service, and you will be talking to a guy in India!

Lastly, where is this all heading? The markets have changed so much, especially in the last five years, and so fast that we don't have economic models that have kept up. Even fairly recent employment statistical data is based on models from the early 90's.

Nothing that we have in any university textbook can really predict what the current and future global markets may bring crashing down on us. Yet we dive right in without making sure that there is enough water in the pool.

all valid... and I've had similar thoughts myself.

 

[Moonbear]

It is stressful beyond
belief that we must once again start looking for jobs in a tight job market.

Maybe it's just that the over-50 generation got spoiled with too much job security early on. I guess my generation is quite accustomed to the idea that no job is permanent. You can't expect companies to all stay open forever or for nothing to change.

Considering that this country was built on the backs of the common working person. A lot of CEO's and other executive types got a free ride to the top. Yet now tend to forget about the workers in favor of the bottom line. When was the last time A CEO took a pay cut?

But the bottom line is everything in business. It's not forgetting about the workers, it's doing what makes economic sense for the company to make money. If they are going to lose money by losing workers, they won't do that, but if they can hire people to do the job for less, they will. Who wouldn't? Why would a CEO take a pay cut? They made it to the top and that's why you struggle and work the 90 hour weeks and don't take vacations and have kids who don't know who you are, so you can climb to the top. Do you really think the CEO just sits around a cushy office all day and does no work?

I don't think a PHD can really connect with the average American worker. For one thing most of the higher educated people, with a few exceptions, have many more options in the work place. When all else fails you can always teach.

That just shows you know nothing about me and my background to know who I can and cannot connect with. Your view is very much a "grass is greener on the other side" view. Do you think someone just waltzes into a high school and gets a job teaching? Usually, we make more options for ourselves by being prepared that we might not be able to work at our dream job, and we make more options for ourselves by being willing to travel across the country for a job, and we make more options for ourselves by working our ***es off and sacrificing our personal lives and running ourselves to the brink of poverty while young so we can secure an education that will provide us with a better future, and we know that's still not a guarantee of anything. Right now, the lab that I work in is getting ready to move to Canada. I'm not sitting here crying a river over it, I got on the phone the moment I knew what needed to be done and found another lab to move to, and that means moving to another state. I'll be there in a week and a half. Now, I have a step-brother who kept himself employed as a factory worker because he was willing to move across country too. My step-father had worked for over 20 years as a mechanic, and when the dealership he worked for closed due to the death of the owner, he couldn't find another job as a mechanic, so he got a job as a truck driver. You adapt. On the other hand, I have a brother-in-law who is sitting around moping because he can't find a job he likes while my sister supports him because he isn't willing to commute an hour to work and doesn't like the hours he has to work for jobs that are closer. I don't know what job he thinks is going to magically appear close to home. So, he's trained as a chef and working in a department store selling suits. I guess he falls into that "under-employed" category, but to me, that's entirely his own fault. There's no shortage of chef's jobs (though I personally think he was lucky to have had the one he left because I don't think he's very good at what he does and needs a reality check there), but he's unwilling to move to where they are.

At this point those of us who are approaching retirement age are just struggling for survival for a few more years by taking any work we can find.

Yes, you do what you have to do.

Those a bit younger must once again retrain for something, but what?? The manufacturing jobs are long gone, and the technical and semi technical jobs are being rapidly outsourced. Call for road service, and you will be talking to a guy in India!

Go into construction, drive a truck, become a plumber or a security guard, or go into roofing in FL. If you don't want to take chances working for someone else, save everything you can and start your own business in any of these lines of work and do residential work. You can't outsource plumbing repair to India and it's a good paying business, especially if you do mostly residential work for all the executives who don't have time to fix stuff themselves. Or you look through the paper and see where the job openings are and get yourself trained to do something that people are hiring for. And you don't wait until you lose your job to start thinking about what your next job will be. If you're working in a factory, start thinking about what happens if that factory closes. Even in a good economy, if everyone from the same factory is suddenly on the job market all at once, it's going to be tough to find another equivalent job locally. So, plan ahead. What else is available locally, where else might you be willing to move, what sort of training would you need to get a different job? Use your weekends to get a trucking license, or go to night classes to learn some other trade, or study for the civil service exam so you can work for the post office or join the police academy or become a firefighter.

Nothing that we have in any university textbook can really predict what the current and future global markets may bring crashing down on us. Yet we dive right in without making sure that there is enough water in the pool.

Nobody can predict the future, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone can. People always fear new things. And, you know what, it may be for good reason. All this outsourcing could cripple the economy. If enough people can't find work, and thus can't buy stuff, all those companies outsourcing will be the cause of their own downfall when they go bankrupt because they have no customers. Or, people will move out of the US and to the other countries where the jobs are. People immigrated here for work, and they can emigrate for work. In the sciences, we already do this when we have to. People doing stem cell research have moved to the UK where they can do their work without the hassle of US government regulations. On the other hand, animal rights groups have gotten out of hand in the UK, so people who got tired of spending their whole day filling out paperwork instead of doing experiments have moved to the US or to Australia or to South Africa (I personally know people who have made moves to each of those locations). As I mentioned, the lab I work in is moving to Canada. I chose not to move with them, but if I didn't have other options, it would have been a foolish choice to stay in the US and I'd have nobody to blame but myself if I had to settle for something less because I was too stubborn to move where the work is.

 

[edward]

Maybe it's just that the over-50 generation got spoiled with too much job security early on. I guess my generation is quite accustomed to the idea that no job is permanent. You can't expect companies to all stay open forever or for nothing to change.

Spoiled is a very poor choice of words to describe America's older generation of workers. I don't know your age. But I do know that unless you have worked 12 hr. days machining parts for military aircraft, you really aren't qualified to make that judgement.

But the bottom line is everything in business. It's not forgetting about the workers, it's doing what makes economic sense for the company to make money. If they are going to lose money by losing workers, they won't do that, but if they can hire people to do the job for less, they will. Who wouldn't? Why would a CEO take a pay cut? They made it to the top and that's why you struggle and work the 90 hour weeks and don't take vacations and have kids who don't know who you are, so you can climb to the top. Do you really think the CEO just sits around a cushy office all day and does no work?

From what I have read, American CEO's are grossly overpaid for what they do compared to CEO's in other countries. Perhaps it is the CEO's who are spoiled by first being overcompensated, and then running a company into the dirt and getting away with it. Doing what is best for the current bottom line isn't necessarily best for the future of a company. GM has only recently discoverd that aspect. They looked only at the bottom line and stockholder satisfaction, when they should have been updating their product line and producing higher quality vehicles.

That just shows you know nothing about me and my background to know who I can and cannot connect with. Your view is very much a "grass is greener on the other side" view. Do you think someone just waltzes into a high school and gets a job teaching? Usually, we make more options for ourselves by being prepared that we might not be able to work at our dream job, and we make more options for ourselves by being willing to travel across the country for a job, and we make more options for ourselves by working our ***es off and sacrificing our personal lives and running ourselves to the brink of poverty while young so we can secure an education that will provide us with a better future, and we know that's still not a guarantee of anything. Right now, the lab that I work in is getting ready to move to Canada. I'm not sitting here crying a river over it, I got on the phone the moment I knew what needed to be done and found another lab to move to, and that means moving to another state. I'll be there in a week and a half. Now, I have a step-brother who kept himself employed as a factory worker because he was willing to move across country too. My step-father had worked for over 20 years as a mechanic, and when the dealership he worked for closed due to the death of the owner, he couldn't find another job as a mechanic, so he got a job as a truck driver. You adapt. On the other hand, I have a brother-in-law who is sitting around moping because he can't find a job he likes while my sister supports him because he isn't willing to commute an hour to work and doesn't like the hours he has to work for jobs that are closer. I don't know what job he thinks is going to magically appear close to home. So, he's trained as a chef and working in a department store selling suits. I guess he falls into that "under-employed" category, but to me, that's entirely his own fault. There's no shortage of chef's jobs (though I personally think he was lucky to have had the one he left because I don't think he's very good at what he does and needs a reality check there), but he's unwilling to move to where they are.

I won't even touch that one except to say as far as your brother in law is concerened ,"there is one in every family" And the last I heard their was a teacher shortage.

Go into construction, drive a truck, become a plumber or a security guard, or go into roofing in FL. If you don't want to take chances working for someone else, save everything you can and start your own business in any of these lines of work and do residential work. You can't outsource plumbing repair to India and it's a good paying business, especially if you do mostly residential work for all the executives who don't have time to fix stuff themselves. Or you look through the paper and see where the job openings are and get yourself trained to do something that people are hiring for. And you don't wait until you lose your job to start thinking about what your next job will be. If you're working in a factory, start thinking about what happens if that factory closes. Even in a good economy, if everyone from the same factory is suddenly on the job market all at once, it's going to be tough to find another equivalent job locally. So, plan ahead. What else is available locally, where else might you be willing to move, what sort of training would you need to get a different job? Use your weekends to get a trucking license, or go to night classes to learn some other trade, or study for the civil service exam so you can work for the post office or join the police academy or become a firefighter.

People over 50 have already done these things several times over. And SIAB was right, it is stressful to retrain and start looking again, and even more so the second and third time around. At the rate the current job situation is changing, even the younger generation will be suffering from PTSD by age 35. If America wants to stay on top its work force must be on top.

Nobody can predict the future, and it's ridiculous to expect anyone can. People always fear new things. And, you know what, it may be for good reason. All this outsourcing could cripple the economy.

Why do we have to wait for this to happen. Weren't you just talking about planning ahead? Why can't a country plan ahead for it's economy and its workers? Could it perhaps be because the country's government is dominated by big business?

If enough people can't find work, and thus can't buy stuff, all those companies outsourcing will be the cause of their own downfall when they go bankrupt because they have no customers.

But is the American worker and the American economy which will suffer the most. Many companies who have filed for bankruptcy have risen out of the ashes only to start using the same old failed policies again.

Or, people will move out of the US and to the other countries where the jobs are. People immigrated here for work, and they can emigrate for work. In the sciences, we already do this when we have to. People doing stem cell research have moved to the UK where they can do their work without the hassle of US government regulations. On the other hand, animal rights groups have gotten out of hand in the UK, so people who got tired of spending their whole day filling out paperwork instead of doing experiments have moved to the US or to Australia or to South Africa (I personally know people who have made moves to each of those locations). As I mentioned, the lab I work in is moving to Canada. I chose not to move with them, but if I didn't have other options, it would have been a foolish choice to stay in the US and I'd have nobody to blame but myself if I had to settle for something less because I was too stubborn to move where the work is.

All I can say to that is: This is not the same America I grew up and originally prospered in. I doubt that there will be many older blue collar workers moving to South Africa or anywhere else to gain employment. Of course from your point of view it would be their fault for missing out on an opportunity. Perhaps you are a bit out of touch with the working class.

 

[loseyourname]

Or she could just be self-motivated and have the initiative to take control of her future into her own hands, rather than expect the government to insure it for her. Like it or not, business owners have the right to spend their money where they please. Labor is a commodity like any other. When was the last time you paid ten times the price for the same good just to help out your countrymen? If businesses continued to pay the higher wages of American skilled workers rather than go overseas, they'd either have to eliminate jobs or raise prices to maintain their profit margins. Either way, somebody loses out and somebody has a sob story to tell. As much as CEOs make, there is only one per company and their salary represents very little of a company's total expenditures. Even if they took a massive pay-cut, that doesn't mean there would suddenly be a ton of money with which to raise everyone else's wages.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do we have to wait for this to happen. Weren't you just talking about planning ahead? Why can't a country plan ahead for it's economy and its workers? Could it perhaps be because the country's government is dominated by big business?

The citizens are the country, edward! The citizens decide things like a Camry is better than a Taurus. The citizens who are in Northwest's union decide that the union itself is more important than their jobs (there is a reason unions are dwindling - people are realizing how absurd they are). Its the citizens who dictate the market for both jobs and products and companies respond to that, not the other way around.

There is a great South Park episode about how evil Wal Mart is. We hear about it all the time. Wal Mart kills small businesses. Wal Mart sells crappy products. Etc, etc. Well they didn't become the king by accident: people buy their products.

edit: Btw, the USSR tried a centrally planned economy...I'd prefer we didn't follow their lead.

But is the American worker and the American economy which will suffer the most. Many companies who have filed for bankruptcy have risen out of the ashes only to start using the same old failed policies again.

And for all that, incomes are high and unemployment is low. The economy is working just fine, your perceptions to the contrary.

All I can say to that is: This is not the same America I grew up and originally prospered in.

That's true. You seem to be implying that that's a bad thing...

I have less job security than my dad did. I also have more job freedom than he did. In the past, companies practically owned their employees. Not anymore, and that is a tradeoff that I consider a positive one.

 

[Smurf]

Just because the USSR had a centralized economy does not mean anywhere with a centralized economy will be the USSR.

 

[Moonbear]

Spoiled is a very poor choice of words to describe America's older generation of workers. I don't know your age. But I do know that unless you have worked 12 hr. days machining parts for military aircraft, you really aren't qualified to make that judgement.

What does that have anything to do with my qualification to make any judgement? Are you suggesting I have never gotten my hands dirty or worked up a sweat or worked long hours, and that disqualifies me from determining someone might have gotten spoiled with such a long spell of job security? I don't see how it would be a disqualification, but if it matters to you so much, my research all involves farm animals, and I've done my share of shoveling sh*t, herding sheep and goats, dragging water buckets out to pastures in the dead of winter, arriving to work at 2 AM in an ice storm because the experiment had to be done and animals needed to be fed, collecting blood samples from sheep every 5 minutes for 8 hours at a time, or every hour for 24 to 72 hours at a time. I've slept on barn floors so I could catch a half hour nap in order to keep going another 12 hours. We spend 9 hours standing for surgeries and then spend another 2 hours scrubbing the OR from top to bottom because nobody else does it for us. I've been kicked and stepped on and knocked on my butt in filthy pens, even hobbled around for 2 hours AFTER spraining my ankle out at the barns because I wasn't done doing what needed doing. And I'm not complaining. The past 3 years I've been spoiled by not having to do that on a regular basis, and I'm looking forward to my new job and getting my hands dirty again.

From what I have read, American CEO's are grossly overpaid for what they do compared to CEO's in other countries. Perhaps it is the CEO's who are spoiled by first being overcompensated, and then running a company into the dirt and getting away with it. Doing what is best for the current bottom line isn't necessarily best for the future of a company. GM has only recently discoverd that aspect. They looked only at the bottom line and stockholder satisfaction, when they should have been updating their product line and producing higher quality vehicles.

It seems a little odd that you complain about jobs being outsourced to other countries because people work for less there and then try to make comparisons between wages of other countries to use that as evidence CEOs are overcompensated. By that same reasoning, all those workers whose jobs are being outsourced are overpaid too. Updating a product line is better for the bottom line too. Your examples aren't of what's better or worse for the bottom line, but what's going to bring in short-term profit vs long-term profit. Sure, some CEOs should get canned when they do a bad job, just like anyone else should get canned when they do a bad job. That doesn't mean they're all doing a bad job just because you can cite some examples where someone made bad decisions for their company.

And the last I heard their was a teacher shortage.

Sure, and a teacher's union that seems to like keeping it that way. I'm not joking. I'm can teach at the university level, and I can teach med students, and I can teach grad students (for all of which there are few job openings), but I would be required to do "student teaching" and take additional courses to be certified to teach high school biology, despite being more qualified than most of the high school teachers currently teaching the subject. That's not to say I wouldn't do it if I found myself unemployed, but I'd prefer to do something that didn't require having to resort to living on an unemployment check for a year or two while satisfying the certification requirements when there are other things I could do right away and for better pay.

People over 50 have already done these things several times over. And SIAB was right, it is stressful to retrain and start looking again, and even more so the second and third time around. At the rate the current job situation is changing, even the younger generation will be suffering from PTSD by age 35. If America wants to stay on top its work force must be on top.

I know you were saying it a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but life is stressful. Anyone who thinks they are going to coast through life without ups and downs and periods of stress is being pretty unrealistic. I was told very early on that most people change careers about 3 times in their lifetime. Sure, it's a bit more stressful when it was someone else's decision and not yours that it's time to change, but ultimately, the outcome is the same anyway.

Why do we have to wait for this to happen. Weren't you just talking about planning ahead? Why can't a country plan ahead for it's economy and its workers? Could it perhaps be because the country's government is dominated by big business?

It's because we don't know that will be the outcome. It could also not come to that. If your concern is that government is dominated by big business, then vote for someone else, but it's rather hard to find someone who will defend our capitalistic economy and simultaneously be in favor of restricting big business. If you don't like what a company is doing, vote with your dollars and don't buy from them.

But is the American worker and the American economy which will suffer the most. Many companies who have filed for bankruptcy have risen out of the ashes only to start using the same old failed policies again.

Well, there's no law against being lousy at what you do and going out of business. A lot of businesses try and fail. That has little to do with the outsourcing debate. But, when big corporations fail, and there's suddenly an open space in the market, it gives some of the small and mid-sized companies an opportunity to grow and fill that gap.

All I can say to that is: This is not the same America I grew up and originally prospered in.

No, it's not. That's one of the beauties of this country, that it changes, adapts, and new opportunities arise for new people all the time. We don't have to stick to doing something only one way just because it's always been done that way.

I doubt that there will be many older blue collar workers moving to South Africa or anywhere else to gain employment. Of course from your point of view it would be their fault for missing out on an opportunity.

As for moving to other countries, I mentioned that in response to the question of what YOUNGER workers would be doing, not the older workers. But, they don't have to go all the way to South Africa. There are a lot of people who are not even willing to move to another state for a job. And it annoys the heck out of me when I hear that there are jobs we supposedly need to give to ILLEGAL immigrants because no Americans will do them. If you're unemployed, and have NO job, and there is a job available, you do it, even if it's only temporary while you continue looking for something better.

Perhaps you are a bit out of touch with the working class.

Why, because I worked my butt off to create options for myself and don't sit around taking the "I'm a victim of the big, evil, corporate CEOs" attitude?

 

[Smurf]

I was told very early on that most people change careers about 3 times in their lifetime. Sure, it's a bit more stressful when it was someone else's decision and not yours that it's time to change, but ultimately, the outcome is the same anyway.

I've heard that statistic too. Any possibility that maybe the reason why that's true is because people are forced to do it?

It's because we don't know that will be the outcome.

This is untrue, economics are not chaotic and unpredictable. If it were we wouldn't have created a field of study for it and Wal-Mart/Micrsoft/Exxon/ect., never would have risen to the status they are now.. unless you believe they're just really really lucky?

It could also not come to that. If your concern is that government is dominated by big business, then vote for someone else, but it's rather hard to find someone who will defend our capitalistic economy and simultaneously be in favor of restricting big business.

Nonsense, that's what a mixed economy is. A Mixed economy is what the USA has implemented, edward simply feels the USA is leaning too far in one direction.

If you don't like what a company is doing, vote with your dollars and don't buy from them.

Firstly, Implying business is a democratic system is complete nonsense. Liberal democracy is based on the principle of 'one man, one vote' (or in modern society, woman too) and "equal representation" and providing protection for minorities. Not on making as much money as possible.

Not everyone get's equal votes, and there is absolutely no way to protect someone from Tyranny of the Majority either. This argument is pure folly, unless your intention is to advocate a system of unfair representation and suppression of minorities.

Secondly, if this WAS a democratic system, edward's actions would be perfectly acceptable as part of liberal democracy is free expression and debate over any aspect or policy of society and government.

 

[Moonbear]

I've heard that statistic too. Any possibility that maybe the reason why that's true is because people are forced to do it?

It could be so. Though, it was told to me in the context of people becoming discontent with careers and choosing to change them.

This is untrue, economics are not chaotic and unpredictable. If it were we wouldn't have created a field of study for it and Wal-Mart/Micrsoft/Exxon/ect., never would have risen to the status they are now.. unless you believe they're just really really lucky?

Economics are not chaotic, true, but other factors can be unpredictable and influence the economy. My comment related back to my responses to Solutions In A Box about predicting the future.

Firstly, Implying business is a democratic system is complete nonsense. Liberal democracy is based on the principle of 'one man, one vote' (or in modern society, woman too) and "equal representation" and providing protection for minorities. Not on making as much money as possible.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to voting in the sense of choosing candidates there, I was referring to who you buy from. Businesses most certainly listen to where their money is coming from. If enough people stopped buying tickets from an airline because they were outsourcing jobs, the airline is going to notice and will have to give into market demand for not outsourcing jobs or else go belly up.

Not everyone get's equal votes, and there is absolutely no way to protect someone from Tyranny of the Majority either. This argument is pure folly, unless your intention is to advocate a system of unfair representation and suppression of minorities.

I don't know where you're getting all this from out of the idea of don't buy from someone whose business practices you don't like? What on Earth does any of this have to do with suppression of minorities?

Secondly, if this WAS a democratic system, edward's actions would be perfectly acceptable as part of liberal democracy is free expression and debate over any aspect or policy of society and government.

Did I say he couldn't say or do anything? I was, however, suggesting that rather than just complain about it, people can actually DO something about things they disagree with if it is important to them.

 

[Smurf]

meh, I was responding in the same context as that cop-out is usually used. It's a stupid cliche and I thought I'd say so.

 

[russ_watters]

Just because the USSR had a centralized economy does not mean anywhere with a centralized economy will be the USSR.

No, but it is highly likely that many of the problems of their centrally planned economy would be reflected in others - if you doubt that, look into some of the othere centrally planned economies and compare (China prior to, say, 1990, North Korea, etc.)

I've heard that statistic too. Any possibility that maybe the reason why that's true is because people are forced to do it?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that statistic is out of date - its something like double what it was 30 years ago. And the reason has more to do with the workers than the companies. People in their 20s, especially, jump from one job to the next looking for the best one for them. And that's perfectly reasonable - who really wants to be locked into a road with no turns by age 25?

This is untrue, economics are not chaotic and unpredictable.

Economics is not chaotic, but markets can be. Not even Bill Gates predicted the internet boom - even after it already started! You can be sure that the law of supply and demand will apply 20 years from now, but if you think you can predict what people will be buying, then you stand to become a billionaire.

 

[loseyourname]

What does that have anything to do with my qualification to make any judgement? Are you suggesting I have never gotten my hands dirty or worked up a sweat or worked long hours, and that disqualifies me from determining someone might have gotten spoiled with such a long spell of job security? I don't see how it would be a disqualification, but if it matters to you so much, my research all involves farm animals, and I've done my share of shoveling sh*t, herding sheep and goats, dragging water buckets out to pastures in the dead of winter, arriving to work at 2 AM in an ice storm because the experiment had to be done and animals needed to be fed, collecting blood samples from sheep every 5 minutes for 8 hours at a time, or every hour for 24 to 72 hours at a time. I've slept on barn floors so I could catch a half hour nap in order to keep going another 12 hours. We spend 9 hours standing for surgeries and then spend another 2 hours scrubbing the OR from top to bottom because nobody else does it for us. I've been kicked and stepped on and knocked on my butt in filthy pens, even hobbled around for 2 hours AFTER spraining my ankle out at the barns because I wasn't done doing what needed doing. And I'm not complaining. The past 3 years I've been spoiled by not having to do that on a regular basis, and I'm looking forward to my new job and getting my hands dirty again.

Wow, you just shot all the way to the top of my list of sexiest women I know, and I don't even know you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wow, you just shot all the way to the top of my list of sexiest women I know, and I don't even know you.

It was the mention of farm animals, right? :!)

 

[solutions in a box]

What does that have anything to do with my qualification to make any judgement? Are you suggesting I have never gotten my hands dirty or worked up a sweat or worked long hours, and that disqualifies me from determining someone might have gotten spoiled with such a long spell of job security? I don't see how it would be a disqualification, but if it matters to you so much.

I didn't see where anyone suggested anything except that you apparently can not relate to people who have struggled with a constantly changing work place for the last 20 years. It may be that it is simply too much to expect someone to be able to comprehend something, when they have "never been there or done that" for nearly half of their working years, as the older working Americans have.

It seems a little odd that you complain about jobs being outsourced to other countries because people work for less there and then try to make comparisons between wages of other countries to use that as evidence CEOs are overcompensated.

It was comparing earnings of CEO's of other countries, not wages of workers. That is oranges and apples, but of course you knew that. Nice attempt at trying to confuse the issue though.

I'm can teach at the university level, and I can teach med students, and I can teach grad students (for all of which there are few job openings)

The universities are hurting financially because of the economy. The university of Arizona has cut entire degree programs. All state and loclal governments are also struggling. Yet you say the economy is good.

But, when big corporations fail, and there's suddenly an open space in the market... That's one of the beauties of this country, that it changes, adapts, and new opportunities arise for new people all the time.

Some of us don't see a sucession of corporate failures with constant change and readaption as being a beautiful part of this country. The new opportunities are mostly going offshore.

I hear that there are jobs we supposedly need to give to ILLEGAL immigrants because no Americans will do them.

This is the most commonly used excuse for continuing to allow illegals to flow over the border at a rate of 2,000 per day. I live in Arizona and I am well aware of what is happening. The illegals aren't taking jobs Americans won't do, or those jobs would not have been filled before the illegals started coming.


A bit off topic
The true story is that the illegals are willing to take the jobs for "less pay" than an American can afford to work for. They are also taking many jobs that once were our second jobs. They are also willing to work at jobs that have no benefits because they know that they will be cared for under current U.S. laws. Most of them in my area get food stamps using fake ID's.

Recently they have learned how to work our health care system in another way. They are a close knit community. One health care insurance policy is purchased. Then all of the persons with the same approxiamte age and sex use the same ID card.

Several months ago I went to a lab for a blood work up. Before they would draw my blood I had to show a picture ID. + my insurance card. The illegals quickly overcome that by getting picture ID cards with the single policy holders name on all of them.
They have brought in a big surge in the fake ID business to accommodate them. It has gotten to the extent that most local commercial truck drivers are illegals using forged drivers licenses and multiple names.

If you're unemployed, and have NO job, and there is a job available, you do it, even if it's only temporary while you continue looking for something better.

Most of the working class have done that. And are continuing to do that, again and again.

Why, because I worked my butt off to create options for myself and don't sit around taking the "I'm a victim of the big, evil, corporate CEOs" attitude?

Many of us have worked our butts off for the same reasons. However, after 15 or 20 years of doing just that, we start to look at WHY it is continuing, and who is causing it to happen.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Many of us have worked our butts off for the same reasons. However, after 15 or 20 years of doing just that, we start to look at WHY it is continuing, and who is causing it to happen.

Funny ... nobody has asked me why I have lived in 6 counties before on this forum.

I've been folowing my job through the world.

Now I am semi-retired.

I am screwed if I fully retire though... no adequate pension.

But I have been employed all my life in my career.

 

[Smurf]

... What IS your job anyway?

 

[loseyourname]

... What IS your job anyway?

Given the amount of time he's been spending here, it presumably involves surfing the internet.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Given the amount of time he's been spending here, it presumably involves surfing the internet.

Let's say I have an MSc IN Computer Science and am now a consultant for companies who want to deal in China. (25 years in business specifying systems in finance and manufacturing)

I am also a part time lecturer in CS, English and Math at Soochow University.

I work about 25 hours a week.

Oh, yes ... and I am writing a book on the Chinese perceptions and problems dealing with Japan and the second world war ... or had you figured that bit out already?

 

[Smurf]

we all suspected a little bit

 

[The Smoking Man]

we all suspected a little bit

I was thinking of writing one about America and their involvement in the world over the past 100 years or so but I ended up writing

@#$%

on the first page and got writers block.

You may also have noted a penchant for cruel humour.

 

[Smurf]

don't worry, you can only see it if you're looking for it. :rollseyes:

 

[The Smoking Man]

don't worry, you can only see it if you're looking for it. :rollseyes:

Damn ... And I thought I was being subtle.

 

[outsider]

Everyone only has the life that they have been given. We can only control our own actions. Options are presented and we must choose. When we fail to choose, that is also a choice. No one deserves anything more than they are given. To ask for more is a luxury and may end without the desired result. Unions are bad for business. Job stability is not representative of the new age we live in. This is why we should stick close to friends and family. We need to help each other make it as the government and corporations do not put our interests before their own. anyway... I'll be taking a few days off of PF... have fun w/ your posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that statistic is out of date - its something like double what it was 30 years ago. And the reason has more to do with the workers than the companies. People in their 20s, especially, jump from one job to the next looking for the best one for them. And that's perfectly reasonable - who really wants to be locked into a road with no turns by age 25?

That stat is tough to track down, but I did find THIS

Myth #4: My first job out of college is one that I will be stuck with for a long time.
Reality: Most new college graduates are in their first job for one to three years.
People who spend a lifetime with one employer are a dying breed. In the new economy, a job change every three to five years is not considered job-hopping. In fact, demonstrated experience at several employers is an asset, while long-term employment with one firm can be a warning sign of someone afraid of risk-taking or change. Studies show that the average working American will have three to five careers and between 10 to 12 jobs during his or her lifetime. As a result, you will need to make multiple moves to gain new skills and get ahead. Do avoid very short stints—those under one year.

 

[edward]

Roman outsourcing

Most posters here have never experienced the America we once had. And now we are being told by some that we can never have America back, because big business says so.

The job stability of previous times was not an evil thing, nor was it boring. No one was stuck in a job or a job field unless they choose to be. From the end of WWII until the 1980's we had, good jobs, good homes, and a good educational system. That is why one of the most popular TV programs ever was Called: "Happy Days"

The war in Vietnam nearly spirited away our happy days, but we didn't succumb to the national discouragement of an ill advised war, and carried on.

I will be the first one to admit that the Vietnam war did provide even more jobs for an already strong industrial base.
When we pulled out of Vietnam the three largest assemblies of military equipment in the world were; What the USA had, What the Russians had, and what the USA left behind in Vietnam.

After the war we moved rapidly into the technological revolution. Both industrial and new tech jobs were steady and plentiful, up until a new phenomenon began. Jobs started to be exported to other countries so that corporations could reap the benefits of cheaper labor.

After being thoroughly reaped American workers were left with; an unsteady, unreliable, ever changing and insecure work place. Math and science test scores in our schools plummeted and rank at an all time low worldwide, neccesitating the importation of skilled and educated foreigners.

Workers must now scramble to buy temporary medical coverage because with each job change they are left without insurance until their new employers medical policy (if it has one at all) takes effect. We have 45 million people without any medical coverage. The lucky ones are those who's income is so low that they can qualify for medicaid.

We have politicians who sit on their behinds regarding domestic problems, while at the same time diving headlong into a foreign a war at the request of American oil companies. They have the time to propagandize the American people into believing there is a justified reason for the war while at the same time they are too busy at home to do anything except give big oil another tax break via a, so called, new energy policy.

They have depleted our skilled work force into a skeleton of its past capabilities, while at the same time talking about new wars which would require our long lost industrial capabilities. They purchased $78,000,000 worth of weapons from China to give to the new Iraqi army because the newly trained Iraqi soldiers felt that American made weapons were inferior.

They want to have their cake and eat it to by wanting to have the worlds strongest military, while at the same time allowing the decimation of the U.S. industrial base that would be needed to provide equipment for that military.
During the first year of WWII American workers produced over 9,000 Sherman tanks, yet more recently it took nearly two years to produce 2,000 armored Humvees.

They are of the mindset that our high tech weapons can bomb any country into submission. Yet they fail to realizing that the people in those, and surrounding countries, still aren't going to allow us have their oil or select their form of government.

At the rate they are allowing our own industrial base to be outsourced, it will eventually become necessary to outsource our own military or at the very least the weapons for that military.

The Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens. They had become lazy and soft, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were then able to easily take over the Empire.

 

[Informal Logic]

"I find Bangalore to be one of the most exciting places in the world," says Dan Scheinman, Cisco Systems Inc.'s senior vice-president for corporate development. "It is Silicon Valley in 1999."

"A new world economy -
Balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve"
Businessweek Aug. 18, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8998389/

 

[solutions in a box]

Inside outsourcing

There seems to be no hint of ethics left in corporate America.

The following link describes illegal aleins who were caught working in an aircraft maintenance facility in Greensboro S.C.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-04-18-air-security_x.htm

Were these jobs that Amercans won't do?

 

[edward]

"A new world economy -
Balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve"
Businessweek Aug. 18, 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8998389/

From the same link:

But visit the office towers and research and development centers sprouting everywhere, and you see the miracle. Here, Indians are playing invaluable roles in the global innovation chain. Motorola, (MOT) Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Cisco Systems (CSCO), and other tech giants now rely on their Indian teams to devise software platforms and dazzling multimedia features for next-generation devices.

I have seen this coming for a long time now. Some, however, see this situation as some kind of a new fun and games adventure for American workers.
It will be a brave new world alright, except for the very wealthy, few Americans will have any participation.

 

[The Smoking Man]

From the same link:



I have seen this coming for a long time now. Some, however, see this situation as some kind of a new fun and games adventure for American workers.
It will be a brave new world alright, except for the very wealthy, few Americans will have any participation.

They are also moving R&D to China in a massive way.

Face it, the USA is a saturated strained market.

Innovation in this case is 'What do people in these developing nations want in a product' and not 'how can we make an American throw away his old one in favour of a new one'.

There is just over 1/3 the population of the Earth living in China and India ... well over 2 billion people.

Why would R&D be centered around an economy that has a mere 300 million people or so when the largest market has different needs and requirements?

 

[russ_watters]

There is just over 1/3 the population of the Earth living in China and India ... well over 2 billion people.

Why would R&D be centered around an economy that has a mere 300 million people or so when the largest market has different needs and requirements?

Its pretty simple: the East isn't the largest market for the types of products you are talking about. Because the per capita gdp in those countries is so low that they can't buy most of the products that you can sell to Americans in anywhere near the quantities in which Americans buy them. For example, roughly 18 million computers were sold in China in 2003 while 160 million were sold in the US.

While Americans buy roughly 20 million cars a year, the Chinese buy about 5 million.

With all those people, a substantial fraction of the GDP goes to basic necessities, so in order for China's purchases of manufactured goods to exceed the America's, the Chinese GDP needs to be substantially higher than the US's. Therein lies the fallacy in directly comparing GDPs.

And yes, I know the Chinese economy is growing quickly. They may surpass the US in computer sales in a decade, but it'll be several decades before they do with most manufactured goods.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Its pretty simple: the East isn't the largest market for the types of products you are talking about. Because the per capita gdp in those countries is so low that they can't buy most of the products that you can sell to Americans in anywhere near the quantities in which Americans buy them. For example, roughly 18 million computers were sold in China in 2003 while 160 million were sold in the US.

While Americans buy roughly 20 million cars a year, the Chinese buy about 5 million.

With all those people, a substantial fraction of the GDP goes to basic necessities, so in order for China's purchases of manufactured goods to exceed the America's, the Chinese GDP needs to be substantially higher than the US's. Therein lies the fallacy in directly comparing GDPs.

And yes, I know the Chinese economy is growing quickly. They may surpass the US in computer sales in a decade, but it'll be several decades before they do with most manufactured goods.

Interesting you use 2003 figures and only quote for China instead of the combined purchasing power of China and India.

Basic necessities ... We have 85% cell phone market penetration in China and one of the most advanced and unified communications backbones over here.

Cars ... the government actively discourages the purchase of cars here because (a) purchasing happens around cities with Shanghai having 20 million people alone and (b) there isn't enough gasoline to run them all.

The population of Beijing and Shanghai exceeds the populations of Australia and of Canada!

GDP is a poor estimate when it comes to purchasing power because it averages income. I hate to tell you this but the 'citizens' (ie. the people who live in cities) make far more than you imagine and have purchasing power that isn't 'drempt of in your philosophy'.

China has for example past Australia, the UK and Germany in the purchase of automobiles.

Also, if you take a look at the stats, most analysts state the sales of cars went down in 2003/04 because the punters are waiting for the lifting of tarrifs which happens completely in 2005.

Now as far as household appliances ... who do you think is taking the cake here... Haier just tried to buy the failing Whirlpool and Hoover brandnames.

Believe me, ... everyday goods will quickly outstrip the USA especially when the USA contines on down the spiral.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting you use 2003 figures and only quote for China instead of the combined purchasing power of China and India.

Partly laziness. But a quick google shows computer sales in India are even lower than in China: about 2.5 million. The other part of the reason is why are you comparing a continent to a country? It doesn't make sense.

Basic necessities ... We have 85% cell phone market penetration in China and one of the most advanced and unified communications backbones over here.

Source? According to THIS article, its only 25%. And cell phones are a lot easier than other "needs" because they require significantly less infrastructure than, say, electricity. Regardless, its the rural areas that will get the infrastructure last and that is an enormous task.

Cars ...

I used cars as an example because for most Americans, its the second most expensive thing they own. Feel free to provide another example.

The population of Beijing and Shanghai exceeds the populations of Australia and of Canada!

That's my point: the markets of the east are big due to the mass of people alone, not due to an actual relative strength: ie, a per capita one.

GDP is a poor estimate when it comes to purchasing power because it averages income.

Actually, I think that makes it a good estimate, which is precisely why you don't want to use it:

I hate to tell you this but the 'citizens' (ie. the people who live in cities) make far more than you imagine and have purchasing power that isn't 'drempt of in your philosophy'.

Ironic - you were here for the discussions on income equality, weren't you? Yes, I suspect if you slice off the top 3rd of the population of China, you'll get a population that is almost half as prosperous (estimate - it could be closer to 2/3) as a comparable Western one, but what of the other 2/3 of the population? Don't they matter?

China has for example past Australia, the UK and Germany in the purchase of automobiles.

I should hope so - those countries have on the order of 1/10 the population of China.

Believe me, ... everyday goods will quickly outstrip the USA especially when the USA contines on down the spiral.

Heh - spiral? Must be a negative spiral, since the US GDP is still increasing at a pretty rapid clip. Regardless, "quickly" is a pretty relative term: my guess is it'll be about 50 years. The fastest it could possibly be is about 20.

For the most part, you didn't address my points, so let me restate them a little more concisely:

1. It will be several decades before China overtakes the US in raw economic strength (or if you want to lump all the east together, you may as well lump all the west together too).
2. However, most of that will continue to go toward necessities and infrastructure, meaning that China still has a ways to go before competing with the US's primary economic strength: consumer goods. If I had to guess, about 50 years.
3. And even then, that's still a raw number, which will not reflect the actual economic development of the country. For consumer products, the concentration of the market matters more than the overall size, and because of the uneven-ness of the economic growth, it could well be a century before China overtakes the US as the choice market for consumer products.

Caveat: my estimates are based on current growth rates and the reality of economics is that it changes much faster than my estimates allow for. So the most that can really be said with any veracty is that China won't be overtaking the US in anything but raw GDP and a few specific markets in the next 20 years.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Partly laziness. But a quick google shows computer sales in India are even lower than in China: about 2.5 million. The other part of the reason is why are you comparing a continent to a country? It doesn't make sense. Source? According to THIS article, its only 25%. And cell phones are a lot easier than other "needs" because they require significantly less infrastructure than, say, electricity. Regardless, its the rural areas that will get the infrastructure last and that is an enormous task. I used cars as an example because for most Americans, its the second most expensive thing they own. Feel free to provide another example. That's my point: the markets of the east are big due to the mass of people alone, not due to an actual relative strength: ie, a per capita one. Actually, I think that makes it a good estimate, which is precisely why you don't want to use it: Ironic - you were here for the discussions on income equality, weren't you? Yes, I suspect if you slice off the top 3rd of the population of China, you'll get a population that is almost half as prosperous (estimate - it could be closer to 2/3) as a comparable Western one, but what of the other 2/3 of the population? Don't they matter? I should hope so - those countries have on the order of 1/10 the population of China. Heh - spiral? Must be a negative spiral, since the US GDP is still increasing at a pretty rapid clip. Regardless, "quickly" is a pretty relative term: my guess is it'll be about 50 years. The fastest it could possibly be is about 20.

For the most part, you didn't address my points, so let me restate them a little more concisely:

1. It will be several decades before China overtakes the US in raw economic strength (or if you want to lump all the east together, you may as well lump all the west together too).
2. However, most of that will continue to go toward necessities and infrastructure, meaning that China still has a ways to go before competing with the US's primary economic strength: consumer goods. If I had to guess, about 50 years.
3. And even then, that's still a raw number, which will not reflect the actual economic development of the country. For consumer products, the concentration of the market matters more than the overall size, and because of the uneven-ness of the economic growth, it could well be a century before China overtakes the US as the choice market for consumer products.

Caveat: my estimates are based on current growth rates and the reality of economics is that it changes much faster than my estimates allow for. So the most that can really be said with any veracty is that China won't be overtaking the US in anything but raw GDP and a few specific markets in the next 20 years.

I was never talking about 'countries' I was talking about MARKETS.

The figures you gave of 168 million ... where did you get it? According to http://in.tech.yahoo.com/050126/137/2j8it.html sales are far short of what you claim.

Chinese PC sales rose 19 percent to 16 million units last year, according to preliminary International Data Corp (IDC) figures, while U.S. demand grew 11 percent to 58 million. Indian growth last year was 31 percent.

Though regional economic engines may cool down in 2005 as the U.S. economy slows, Asian PC demand was likely to stay resilient.

"In China and India, there are 3 billion people, of which 80 to 90 percent do not own or have access to computing, and while not completely isolated from worldwide economic growth, it appears that demand for PCs is going to remain strong," he added.

Asia Pacific ex-Japan contributed about 46 percent of Intel's total revenue in the fourth quarter, with Japan accounting for about 9 percent.

Intel's microprocessors, the "brains" of a personal computer, are used in 80 percent of the world's PCs.

The Asia Pacific ex-Japan saw total PC shipments of 34 million units last year, 16 percent higher than in 2003. Growth is expected to ease to 11 percent this year, IDC said.

This all backs my claim that growth has its major potential in Asia.

You're right I had misread the market penetration of Cells in China in this article: http://www.crn-india.com/features/stories/44951.html Which does state:

A key indicator of a country''''s consumption potential is the total number of cell phone users in that country In China the cell phone users have already equaled the landline phones installed As on end-November 2002, China had 20 03-crore cell phone users According to COAI, the total number of cell phone users in India (June 2003) are 1 52 crore India today has 3 6 crore (till April 2003) landline phones installed In China this figure is 21 3 crore (till November 2002)

What we are looking at is the growth of cell phone use because, as you have pointed out, connections to the backbone in rural areas has been outstripped by demand.

Regardless of WHY it is happening, the sales indicate concentrated areas of consumption indicating markets that exceed US consumption.

Cars are now a false indicator due to as I said, the fact that it costs more than the price of a car to actually license a car in Shanghai ... 34,000 RMB to buy a plate when a used VW Santana can be purchased for $15,000 AND they have limited the number of licences for sale.

Now the reason WHY I am comparing Asia to the USA is to go by your false assumption that the USA is not in competition with a product type in demand in a market.

There are currently trade agreements between the Chinese and India creating a market potential of 3 billion people. While America does see a larger demand for luxury goods, the combined Asian market has created a LARGER secondary market in utility goods which now require another form of innivation in R&D.

While you are experiencing mediocre sales in refrigerators with bluetooth connections for example, sales of simple utilitarian refrigerators with super-insulation and efficient motors/vacuum pumps (due to unstable electricity supplies) are going through the roof.

This is the new market.

What is currently being seen in the USA is viewed as a false market since it is 'credit driven'. China and India are cash driven societies since banks are reluctant to make personal loans.

All in all, the traditional view of the American Markets can not be applied to SE Asia and much of the world any more. There are too many new factors.

The view of The USA compared to China is, for example like trying to compare a country (China) to all of America and forgetting about Brazil, Argentina and Peru.

That is why we must discuss Markets instead of countries.

Now while the GDP of America is 'enviable' from one point of view, it is absurd from another. The question simply is ... how do you compete when your market is so far out of kilter with the rest of the world? Sure you can produce cars but who can buy them?

Germany (BMW) is currently manufacturing their product in China at a fraction of the price due to lower costs and they are going like gangbusters here. The USA is also manufacturing cars here for sales in this market. This is HOW your companies are having to remain competetive. So yeah, American cars are sold in China are going up and your corporate profits are up substantially however you are still closing factories AND having to develop vehicles that fit into this market.

You saw me mention the VW Santana ... what is it? It's a car specifically developed for the Chinese market BY VW to fit this market. Where was it developed? ... HERE from the components of other VW models.

In the early 90's, the USA held 95% of all patents issued worldwide. You are now sitting with about 45% of the current patents. That alone should scare the sh!t out of you.

The fact that the market is driven by the sheer number of people as opposed to the GDP ... that's absurd. Companies don't care HOW they tap a growing market. They are not foing to sit on the sidelines waiting for China and India to come up to the level of the US before they introduce product. They are simply going to introduce product that suits the market.

So yeah, your idea is to become like Britain in the late 50's, early 60's with your blinders on to the 'new order'. If you want to sell Rolls' and British Leyland products to a shrinking elite, go ahead.

 

[Skyhunter]

Russ you keep saying how unemployment is so low. And based on the Labor department statistics it is currently at 5%. But look what happens when you combine job creation with population growth.

In Jan 2001 there were 132.388 million Americans employed. Unemployment was 4.2% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 67.2%. In Dec 2004 there are 132.266 million Americans employed. Unemployment is 5.4% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 66.0%.

I couldn’t find the exact job numbers I was looking for but here is a fairly accurate estimate.

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

 

[SOS2008]

Russ you keep saying how unemployment is so low. And based on the Labor department statistics it is currently at 5%. But look what happens when you combine job creation with population growth.

In Jan 2001 there were 132.388 million Americans employed. Unemployment was 4.2% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 67.2%. In Dec 2004 there are 132.266 million Americans employed. Unemployment is 5.4% with a civilian labor force participation rate of 66.0%.

I couldn’t find the exact job numbers I was looking for but here is a fairly accurate estimate.

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

Agreed -- benefits are not a good indicator for two reasons. I know three people who were laid off. They were still unemployed after their benefits ended for as much as two more years. All three people have jobs again, but two have jobs in different industries at a fraction of what they used to earn. So when we look at job creation, we must also realize these jobs are not as high-end. It's all just Bush-s**t.

 

[Smurf]

Ironic - you were here for the discussions on income equality, weren't you? Yes, I suspect if you slice off the top 3rd of the population of China, you'll get a population that is almost half as prosperous (estimate - it could be closer to 2/3) as a comparable Western one, but what of the other 2/3 of the population? Don't they matter?

Actually, no. Because just 1/3 of China's population is still more than 400 million people. I think GM trys to tap markets much much smaller than that.

 

[edward]

The Population of the US increased by 14,312,228 since Bush took office.
New job created in since Bush took office is 2,346,000. This leaves approximately 12 million new people without jobs. At 66% participation new jobs should be 9,446,070.

So how can we use the number of people receiving benefits as a measure of how many people are not working?

What are the other 7,100,070 people doing?

Over two million of them are in prison.
As my mother used to say: "Idle hands are the devils plaything."


Most of the rest of them are here:

The official rate is the percentage of all workers who are unemployed, expressed as unemploy- ment/labor force. The numerator, unemployment, is the number of jobless people who have actively looked for work during the last four weeks. The denominator is the number of people in the labor force, which equals employment plus unemployment, or people who have jobs plus those who are unemployed as defined in the numerator.

This measure understates unemployment in two key respects. First, unemployment excludes involuntary part-timers—people who want full-time work but have to settle for part-time or split-week schedules. Second, it excludes “discouraged workers”—those who believe they can no longer find work and stop looking or who indicate they want a job and have looked for work sometime in the indefinite recent past. People in this category are no longer actively seeking work and are therefore classified as “not in the labor force” (neither employed nor unemployed).

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2004/duboff0204.html