News I really see no hope for employment in the US

[twofish-quant]

This is the fundamental issue, and it pertains to jobs well beyond specialized technical jobs. This is why the bulk of manufacturing jobs left the US a long time ago.

The only ethical solution I can think of is to increase the standard of living in China and India so that it's not financially advantageous to move jobs. This is already starting to happen in manufacturing. For skilled jobs, the salaries in China aren't that much lower than the US.

The problem then becomes once you equalize the salaries, the jobs won't move to the people, but the people will move to the jobs.

The reality is that we all have to compete against a global workforce- knowledge and capital are fluid commodities.

And then you run into some basic ethical issues. Why *should* an American find it easier to get a job than someone that lives in China or India or Rwanda?

More or less true story. I was at a meeting in which people were talking about something that I thought would move jobs from the US to some other country. As a US citizen, is it my patriotic duty to oppose this?

Sure, but the problem was it was sort of pointless since I was the only US citizen in the room, and arguing that moving jobs from the US to India is a bad thing for the US is not an argument that the Indians in the meeting would find valid. The other people in the meeting were French, German, Mexican, Chinese, English etc.

I have a patriotic and sentimental attachment to the United States. Someone that was born and raised in Italy, just doesn't. They'll get annoyed if you move jobs from Italy to India, but if it is US to India, they won't care, and they have no reason to care. Indians would be happy, and there are more Indians than Americans.

That's one more thing that worries me. People in France or Mexico or China are used to having their fate decided by people who aren't French, Mexican, or Chinese. It sometimes makes them furious, but people are used to it. People in the US *aren't* used to this, and I wonder how most Americans will react to this.

 

[DDTea]

See, twofish, it's not about destroying the system; it's about fundamentally changing it and correcting the problems that have gotten us into this rut, or we'll see this cyclical pattern again and again of bubbles and collapses.

We have scientists who graduate with B.S.'s and $20,000 in debt, thrown into a pool of unemployed workers, where they're competing for the same position with people who are both more educated and more experienced than themselves. This is the frustrating position that I was in for over a year. Who gets hired? Yeah, a few B.S.'s may get hired, but they're the statistical aberrations. I'm one of those aberrations. They get subsistence wages, barely, and are often doing more work and higher quality work than that company has seen before: 12 hour shifts, $20/hr, zero job security, and pretty poor benefits.

The end result is, as someone mentioned above, the destruction of the middle class. No one will be able to buy a house because they do not have enough job security to afford one, so they rent month to month. How can you have a family that way or any hope of retiring? People will work until they die. It's the middle ages 2.0: a landed gentry and virtual slave labor.

Yeah, cutting jobs is a great way to save money, and a lower-paid, younger, naive, exploited workforce will be economical for any corporation. Industry as a whole will benefit, at least temporarily, until nobody can afford to buy their products and the economy grinds to a halt.

Employers simply have unrealistic expectations. I have seriously seen openings requiring a B.S. in chemistry that involve, and I quote, "weighing samples, calculating molar masses." Also, I've come across an M.S. positions for working with dangerous pathogens and toxic chemicals for $35k/yr. Great! You have a high risk position and you can still qualify for food-stamps! I'm *sure* the employer is going to bend over backwards when their employee gets sick/injured. When someone gets sick, it's no longer a problem: it's an opportunity!

It's not simply about fighting the man and the employees taking over the means of production (although I'm all in favor of that, too): employers simply need to treat their employees with the respect they deserve rather than being so cynical.

 

[atyy]

And then you run into some basic ethical issues. Why *should* an American find it easier to get a job than someone that lives in China or India or Rwanda?

More or less true story. I was at a meeting in which people were talking about something that I thought would move jobs from the US to some other country. As a US citizen, is it my patriotic duty to oppose this?

Sure, but the problem was it was sort of pointless since I was the only US citizen in the room, and arguing that moving jobs from the US to India is a bad thing for the US is not an argument that the Indians in the meeting would find valid. The other people in the meeting were French, German, Mexican, Chinese, English etc.

I have a patriotic and sentimental attachment to the United States. Someone that was born and raised in Italy, just doesn't. They'll get annoyed if you move jobs from Italy to India, but if it is US to India, they won't care, and they have no reason to care. Indians would be happy, and there are more Indians than Americans.

That's one more thing that worries me. People in France or Mexico or China are used to having their fate decided by people who aren't French, Mexican, or Chinese. It sometimes makes them furious, but people are used to it. People in the US *aren't* used to this, and I wonder how most Americans will react to this.

Is that really your patriotic duty? If someone else can make something cheaper and better, that could ultimately make it cheaper for many others in the US to buy.

Is the economic situation a failure of capitalism? Or is it due to bankers' negligence and lack ethics?

 

[cgk]

I don't think the main problem the US has is the destruction of the middle class. I think the main problem is the destruction of industry and agriculture. I don't mean financial industry or "serivce" industry. I mean real industry, producing real goods, things you can touch.

Economists say that industry is in decline, and that this is a good thing, because what we are seeing is a transformation to a service-oriented business model. But in the end, aren't the physical goods the ones which count? If I cut your hair and you give me 10$ for it, and then you cut my hair and I give you 10$ for it, what have we accomplished? An economist would say that we have increased the GDP by 20$ and thus contributed to growth of wealth. Is this really a correct interpretation of what happened? If instead I would give you 10$ for half an hour of work producing some good which otherwise would not exist, would that be something different?

In the past there was a strong move from actual industry producing goods to financial industry, in particular. The problem now is that the US has been living on loans: It borrows money from China and Europe (not the countries, from private investors) in order to buy goods from all over the world. Due to this there is a gigantic mismatch between the goods present in the US and the amount of goods actually produced there: It is simply not required to produce anything, because ultimately you can just get it for free! (or rather: for promises and paper.) This is why financial industry has been so much more successful than real industry...

 

[twofish-quant]

Is that really your patriotic duty? If someone else can make something cheaper and better, that could ultimately make it cheaper for many others in the US to buy.

The problem is that it doesn't matter how cheap the products are if people don't have money to buy them.

Is the economic situation a failure of capitalism? Or is it due to bankers' negligence and lack ethics?

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.

 

[twofish-quant]

See, twofish, it's not about destroying the system; it's about fundamentally changing it and correcting the problems that have gotten us into this rut, or we'll see this cyclical pattern again and again of bubbles and collapses.

Personally, I think that market economies are dynamically unstable, and bubbles and collapses are an essential part of any market. The important thing is setting up a system so that bubbles and collapses don't come close to destroying the world economy. We more or less managed to do that in the mid-20th century, and I think a lot of the problems that we have are because we removed some of the shock absorbers.

It's not simply about fighting the man and the employees taking over the means of production (although I'm all in favor of that, too): employers simply need to treat their employees with the respect they deserve rather than being so cynical.

It's not simple.

The problem is that employers are also under a lot of pressure to cut costs. You can't pay workers if you don't have money. If you pay your workers more, but it means that your products are somewhat more expensive, you get killed in the market. It's not as if there is this big bag of cash in the back room that you can open up and spread around. There *is* a big bag of cash, but if you open it up and spread around, you are dead the next time there is a crash.

What I find frustrating is that John Maynard Keynes figured out the answer to this problem fifty years ago. If you have lots of cash in the back room and no one is willing to spend, then you have the government just print money and hire people. That's what China did in 2008-2009.

 

[twofish-quant]

If I cut your hair and you give me 10$ for it, and then you cut my hair and I give you 10$ for it, what have we accomplished?

Nothing, but if you cut my hair and I fix your computers, then we've done useful stuff. Also useful stuff gets accomplished even if we cut each others hair. I can't cut the hair at the back of my neck, and you can't either, so we are both better off if we cut each others hair.

In the past there was a strong move from actual industry producing goods to financial industry, in particular. The problem now is that the US has been living on loans: It borrows money from China and Europe (not the countries, from private investors) in order to buy goods from all over the world.

The same is pretty much true of China curiously enough. The economy in China in 1985 was 80% agriculture, 10% manufacturing, and 10% services. It's now 45% agriculture, 15% manufacturing and 40% services. (Rough numbers).

The interesting thing about the Chinese economy is that manufacturing doesn't employ that many people (then again 10% * 1.3 billion is a big number). During the 1990's, China closed the state owned enterprises and created new jobs in exports. The new jobs in exports then jump started a service industry.

The trouble with the US, is not that it was living off loans, but it was putting loans to non-useful things. Between 2001 and 2008, you had massive amounts of money go into real estate. If that same money had gone into clean energy, English teachers, or building telescopes and spaceships, I think we'd be better off. If instead of building houses, we had decided to put the money to build houses on Mars, that would have generated spinoffs that would have paid off the loans.

It is simply not required to produce anything, because ultimately you can just get it for free! (or rather: for promises and paper.) This is why financial industry has been so much more successful than real industry...

One science fiction scenario that I think about is suppose its 2050, and we can build anything we want. Push a button and any physical object that you produce appears. How would that economy work?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Personally, I think that market economies are dynamically unstable, and bubbles and collapses are an essential part of any market. The important thing is setting up a system so that bubbles and collapses don't come close to destroying the world economy. We more or less managed to do that in the mid-20th century, and I think a lot of the problems that we have are because we removed some of the shock absorbers.

I think that's the standard macroeconomic theory. The progressive tax system is supposed to be a shock absorber because it will automatically cut in a bust and helps to reign in the booms. Unfortunately, as incomes have grown, the payroll taxes have become downright regressive (top earners consistently make above the cap). I believe the regressive tendencies Warren Buffet complained about are at least partly responsible for both the runaway disparity between wealthy and poor and the recession: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../06/27/AR2007062700097.html?hpid=sec-politics

 

[chiro]

Push a button and any physical object that you produce appears. How would that economy work?

As long as consumption still exists there will always be a so called "economy".

One thing apart from your "magic push button device" is free energy. Currently energy like other economic resources is a consumption device. Take this away and people can do pretty much anything for free.

The so called "players" in the economy would bust, but not only that, everyone would their own opportunity to create wealth, and that would be very very interesting indeed.

 

[Mathnomalous]

This thread is very interesting and informative! Love it!

I think the solution is a re-balance of needs and wants. People want too many things when they probably just need a few things to lead a happy, productive life. Certainly, concentrated US wealth at the top will have to be released back down if the US wants to maintain some kind of stable society. I am sure those at the top understand this better than me, and they will figure out ways to establish some form of balance. But, I would like to see what 40% or more US unemployment looks like.

My personal solution is to obtain no more than 6 years of academic training (BS + MS) and, after completion, leave the US. I might return once the Baby Boomers are 80% gone. In the meantime, things need to get worse before they improve.

 

[gravenewworld]

Everyone makes money off of you. Schools get their cut by charging outrageous tuitions that keep rising faster than the rate of inflation. Banks make money off you through all of the interest you have to pay on loans for an education. Then business makes money off you by putting you through the never ending cycle of permatemps or other lowpaying jobs that are underemployment. When does the working man get his fair share?Everyone at almost every level profits off of me and what do I get in return? A dead end job with stagnant wages that is about to get offshored yet again. No one is asking to be rich, is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?

 

[atyy]

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.

Yes. So the question is what type of regulation? I would prefer to regulate bankers, than to prevent meritocracy. OTOH, I am not a US citizen so maybe it is my patriotic duty to convince Americans that it is not their patriotic duty to keep jobs in the US by regulation. I do have sympathy with your socialist instincts though, coming from a country where 70% of people live in government housing and find that excellent.

 

[discrete*]

Everyone makes money off of you. Schools get their cut by charging outrageous tuitions that keep rising faster than the rate of inflation. Banks make money off you through all of the interest you have to pay on loans for an education. Then business makes money off you by putting you through the never ending cycle of permatemps or other lowpaying jobs that are underemployment. When does the working man get his fair share?Everyone at almost every level profits off of me and what do I get in return? A dead end job with stagnant wages that is about to get offshored yet again. No one is asking to be rich, is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?

You've just described the rather cancerous aspects of our society. Greed has run wild here, and the middle class has taken the brunt of it. Twofish is right, the middle class is disappearing. It goes back to the old adage "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer"; and when that happens the middle class vanishes. This is a serious problem in the United States right now. It's honestly heartbreaking to hear these types of stories of people who put time and effort into science and have gotten a big f**k you in return.

 

[discrete*]

What I find frustrating is that John Maynard Keynes figured out the answer to this problem fifty years ago. If you have lots of cash in the back room and no one is willing to spend, then you have the government just print money and hire people. That's what China did in 2008-2009.

You're 100% correct here. From what I gather, many contemporary Economists describe themselves as Keynesian, but not many of them actually are.

It really depends. Personally, I've gotten treated really well by industry. If you want to make major changes to the system, then count me in, but if you want to blow up the system, then count me out.

If all companies treated all employees badly, then it's easy to have a revolution. The problem that you have is that you have people like me that really, really benefit from the current system. If you are proposing European-style social democracy, count me in. If you are talking about lynching bankers and managers, then count me out since I'm going to be one of the people that you are planning to lynch.

The reason I'm a very strong supporter of social democracy is that if things keep going the way that they are going, people will be out to get my hide, so I want to keep things from getting worse before I find myself on the wrong side of the rope.

One thing that is interesting about the internet is that you meet all sorts of interesting people. For example, if you go to a college coffee house and then shout Wall Street bankers are evil, let's beat them up, you can get a "rahhh rahhh rahh!" The problem with doing this online, is that you are more than likely find that someone in your audience is a Wall Street banker.

I think you represent a side of "Wall Street" that is unseen or incorrectly portrayed, Twofish. I think you're right in that we need serious reform at a fundamental level, and it's not something that the media would ever present as coming from the mouth of one of the "bad guys". I'm curious, do many of your compatriots share your views, or are you a rarity?

 

[discrete*]

No, we need socialism to KILL capitalism. We don't need more science funding, we need less. We need fewer people with science degrees because they are glutting the market. Science degrees are hard efforts, but they are cheap on employment market. The costs don't add up. Science has been thoroughly victimized by the greed of Industry that wants to cut the costs of production while producing a higher quality product, using higher quality labor. It doesn't add up. If people keep knifing each other in the back, desperately chasing ever-decreasing wages and jobs that they are far overqualified for, things will never get better.

Industry is way out of line in the way it treats its employees and it has to stop.

You make good points, I think. However, extreme actions such as the ones you've listed rarely ever work out the way that they should. We simply don't have the masses to strike up such a revolution. And that's because of the political divide in this country. You have the right and left all fighting for change, but at the same time fighting each other. It's a brilliant strategy by the government officials and leaders, really -- divide and conquer. The current system is a joke. You have these politicians arguing over things for no other reason than to keep the populous divided. If you think that at the end of the day these politicians aren't going home, getting fat and laughing together, than you need to wake up. The wider the rift, the easier it is for them to keep manipulating things. Once that rift closes, than we'll see reform. The divide between the public can only be closed in a select number of ways. Most of them aren't very nice to think about.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's a brilliant strategy by the government officials and leaders, really -- divide and conquer.

I don't think it's a clever strategy. If you look at the government officials and leaders, they are as divided as anyone else is.

If you think that at the end of the day these politicians aren't going home, getting fat and laughing together, than you need to wake up.

I've seen politicians up close, and I don't think that they are laughing together. If you spend time with someone, you have to have some level of civility, so I don't think that Barak Obama is going to punch Sarah Palin in the nose, but at the same time, I don't think that they are part of a secret conspiracy.

Once that rift closes, than we'll see reform.

I hate the word reform, because it's meaningless. Talking about reform is worse than useless, because it disguises the fact that people really don't agree on what needs to be reformed, and that's the hard part. I think the US would be better off with higher taxes and more government spending. Trouble is that half of the House of Representatives disagrees with me on that point, and thinks the fix is lower taxes and less government spending.

Politics would be a lot easier if you didn't have people disagree, but people disagree, and personally, I think that the US political system works quite well in the grand scheme of things.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think you represent a side of "Wall Street" that is unseen or incorrectly portrayed

It's because you can't sell ads and get viewers unless you make things simple and have a bad guy.

Twofish. I think you're right in that we need serious reform at a fundamental level

I think "serious reform at a fundamental level" is a meaningless statement. Personally, I think that we need a large increase in taxes on people making over a certain limit, and then massive spending on public infrastructure to create jobs. The problem with talking about "serious reform at a fundamental level" is that there are a lot of people that want deep changes, but they want deep changes in the exactly opposite direction.

Also, the changes that I support aren't that radical. I think it would be a good thing if the highest tax bracket was increased from 35% to 45%, but if you talk about increasing things to 90%, then you lose me.

One problem is that you can't measure "reform" or "regulation" by the pound. Give me a pound of reform and an ounce of regulation. In order to get things done you have to be extremely familiar with the details of the proposals, and most people get bored when you go into the details.

It's not something that the media would ever present as coming from the mouth of one of the "bad guys".

That's because I make things more complex, and complexity doesn't sell papers.

I'm curious, do many of your compatriots share your views, or are you a rarity?

Depends which views. People in investment banking disagree just like people anywhere. My views on how the banking system ought to be structured aren't particularly radical. Among Americans, I am unusual in that I'm willing to call myself a socialist where that is usually a dirty word in the United States.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't aware that postdocs had a virtually guaranteed faculty position in some college chemistry department. I'm glad to hear that.

I don't know it for a fact. I was guessing that the situation was not completely dissimilar from what it is in Physics.

Things are as http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/88/pdf/8828acsnews.pdf"

The last figure has some interesting data. First off, unemployment is definitely lower among PhD's than it is among BS's and MS's. Also, notice the dip in unemployment in the 30-40 age group. That's not the demographic that's making its way through grad school; it's the group that includes a lot of recent PhD's and postdocs.

And, in general, it seems to me like the employment numbers are trending roughly with the overall health of the broader economy. It's hard to tell from the 10-yrs worth of numbers that there is a definite downtrend in the field.

PS: Didn't read any of the text besides what's in the figures.

 

[Gokul43201]

Everyone makes money off of you. Schools get their cut by charging outrageous tuitions that keep rising faster than the rate of inflation. Banks make money off you through all of the interest you have to pay on loans for an education. Then business makes money off you by putting you through the never ending cycle of permatemps or other lowpaying jobs that are underemployment. When does the working man get his fair share?Everyone at almost every level profits off of me and what do I get in return?

A higher inflation adjusted income than you would have had 50 years ago? A salary that allows two-thirds of all households to own a house, start a family, and put children through college?

 

[chemisttree]

When I graduated High School, the last day of class was devoted to... nothing. We spent the time talking about our life plans and the parties after graduation night. That day is forever seared into my mind, though. One of my teachers had us watch "Powers of Ten" and "Future Shock".

What I saw in "Future Shock" really rattled me. And it's here with a vengance!

 

[discrete*]

I've seen politicians up close, and I don't think that they are laughing together. If you spend time with someone, you have to have some level of civility, so I don't think that Barak Obama is going to punch Sarah Palin in the nose, but at the same time, I don't think that they are part of a secret conspiracy.

I don't think there's a secret conspiracy either, but I do think that the politicians profit from keeping the nation divided on the challenging issues.

I hate the word reform, because it's meaningless. Talking about reform is worse than useless, because it disguises the fact that people really don't agree on what needs to be reformed, and that's the hard part. I think the US would be better off with higher taxes and more government spending. Trouble is that half of the House of Representatives disagrees with me on that point, and thinks the fix is lower taxes and less government spending.

It is a vague word. You're correct.

Politics would be a lot easier if you didn't have people disagree, but people disagree, and personally, I think that the US political system works quite well in the grand scheme of things.

I think the US political system did work quite well for a long time. And it still works, but there needs to be a major shift in many areas. As you've said multiple times already, higher taxes for the rich and a lot of capital put towards infrastructure and science is a great start. But it's only a start. I'm not saying we need an out and out communist government, but we need to move this country into a more socialistic democracy or we're going to fall by the wayside. Let's be honest here, there's groups that are active right now that are literally shouting to "go back to the way things were" and all about "the founders"; they're stifling American progress. You cited European governments as being a good example, and I'd agree. But, I do see what you're saying about people disagreeing.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The only ethical solution I can think of is to increase the standard of living in China and India so that it's not financially advantageous to move jobs.

<snip>

And then you run into some basic ethical issues. Why *should* an American find it easier to get a job than someone that lives in China or India or Rwanda?

More or less true story. I was at a meeting in which people were talking about something that I thought would move jobs from the US to some other country. As a US citizen, is it my patriotic duty to oppose this?
<snip>

Your solution, while perfectly reasonable, is unrealistic on a timescale comparable to my lifetime (or my students' lifetimes)- there's too much existing disparity and poverty worldwide.

Personally, I think having access to a global pool of talent is great: it's a natural extension of accessing the pool of talent currently labeled as "underrepresented minorities". I'm interested in getting the best students I can, I don't care where they come from.

Again, in order to be competitive in a global environment, I have to focus on skills that distinguish me from everyone else, and not only that, I have to recognize that my skill set must constantly evolve and change- lifelong learning.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?

You can ask for whatever you want. You are not entitled to it.

 

[drankin]

You can ask for whatever you want. You are not entitled to it.

Bingo. Just because I went to school and took out some student loans doesn't mean that there should be a job waiting for me. And it doesn't mean that something is wrong with the industry. I've never held a job for more than 2yrs in my life until now. I'm 40yrs old. This is how long it took for me to really create my competitive niche and exploit it until I am not just another dude with a degree. If I had been unsuccessful, which is still to be determined, I wouldn't be blaming anyone but myself.

Ultimately, my education was just a direction. It guaranteed nothing. Only 10-20 percent of my class is actually working in what they went to school for.

People hate to hear it but this is how life works. If it were easy, it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I don't know it for a fact. I was guessing that the situation was not completely dissimilar from what it is in Physics.

In physics, a postdoc is not at all a guarantee of a faculty position.

 

[Gokul43201]

In physics, a postdoc is not at all a guarantee of a faculty position.

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.

 

[edward]

When I graduated High School, the last day of class was devoted to... nothing. We spent the time talking about our life plans and the parties after graduation night. That day is forever seared into my mind, though. One of my teachers had us watch "Powers of Ten" and "Future Shock".

What I saw in "Future Shock" really rattled me. And it's here with a vengance!

That is a great link. I saw a documentary about the stock markets a while back that I had a hard time wrapping my brain around.

Quants The Alchemists of Wall Street.

BTW this was produced by Dutch television.

http://www.midasoracle.org/2010/09/24/quants-the-alchemists-of-wall-street/

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't think there's a secret conspiracy either, but I do think that the politicians profit from keeping the nation divided on the challenging issues.

The fact that people have fundamental disagreements about how the world should work or does work really isn't the fault of the politicians. It's just the way that the world is.

But it's only a start. I'm not saying we need an out and out communist government, but we need to move this country into a more socialistic democracy or we're going to fall by the wayside.

I tend to agree, but lots of people don't. The one bit of good news is that the US is big enough so that it can afford to make some mistakes and go in the wrong direction for a while. Personally, what I think will happen is that things will get somewhat worse, at some point, it will be more obvious that socialism is a good thing.

Then again, maybe it won't, and if it doesn't, then I was wrong, and it was a good thing we didn't go in that direction.

 

[twofish-quant]

You can ask for whatever you want. You are not entitled to it.

Just a philosophical question. Why not?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Just a philosophical question. Why not?

Are you seriously asking me why I am not entitled to whatever I want?